Should Bill of Rights Have Limits. Think about it

[mattskramer]

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.

 

[Shogun]

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 If you think the Ninth is too permissive then get it repealed.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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[mattskramer]

No sane person advocates bazookas or machineguns and you know it.

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.

 

[Shogun]

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

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.

 

[Shogun]

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.




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...

 

[mattskramer]

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.




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...

Point taken. Okay. Okay. I guess that I can get off my soapbox and take a chill pill now.

 

[Shogun]

hehehe..


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

hehe..

 

[Edward]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[manu1959]

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.

what if i paint your dog like the american flag and make it wear a george bush mask....

 

[eots]

what if i paint your dog like the american flag and make it wear a george bush mask....

well now that would be just...cruel

 

[82Marine89]

what if i paint your dog like the american flag and make it wear a george bush mask....

I'd have to check his ass for signs of abuse.

 

[Paulie]

what if i paint your dog like the american flag and make it wear a george bush mask....

I gotta be honest with you...I'd personally question your actual patriotism, and overall attitude towards this country for such gross and offensive misuse, misrepresentation, and mistreatment of The Colors. I'm sure any past or present military members in here could agree with me on that.

 

[Ninja]

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.

I'd sleep perfectly well knowing that you owned bazookas and machine guns.

You seem like a decent guy who, if he chose to exercise his fundamental, human right to keep and bear arms, would do so with no nefarious intentions... Like most of my fellow Americans.

I trust you, Matt.

I trust all people until they give me a reason not to.

And if I ever become president you'll be able to buy full auto surplus M16A1s through the CMP.

 

[Edward]

I'd sleep perfectly well knowing that you owned bazookas and machine guns.

You seem like a decent guy who, if he chose to exercise his fundamental, human right to keep and bear arms, would do so with no nefarious intentions... Like most of my fellow Americans.

I trust you, Matt.

I trust all people until they give me a reason not to.

And if I ever become president you'll be able to buy full auto surplus M16A1s through the CMP.

We wouldn't need the U.S. Military or federal, state or local police if we all can own as many guns as we want and form our own armies, and police forces. It isn't like people might have nefarious reasons for wanting guns.

Conservatives believe that their fucking right to own guns is absolute even when threatens our rights and the rights of our loved ones. Now these bastards believe it is a fundamental human right to own guns but that it isn't a fundamental human right to be secure in our persons knowing that if we own one gun that we and our families will be safe because someone like snowman who is clearly as fucking unhinged as those whom he votes for having enough to take on an armed force. We want to be able to walk down the street safely knowing that he doesn't have enough weapons in his trunk to take on an entire police force. To watch as a couple of heavily armed men with body armor take on an entire police force in a shootout should tell us the threat posed by these right wing nuts who believe the right to own guns is absolute.

There is good in balancing all of our rights but these kind of people don't want to balance our rights instead in placing their rights ahead of ours they violate our rights. They want to force us to accept their rights as they stand and force us to give up our rights in order for them to have theirs and this is something we must reject. If their exercise of their 2nd amendment right violates my rights then they can take their 2nd amendment and shove it up their asses.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We wouldn't need the U.S. Military or federal, state or local police if we all can own as many guns as we want and form our own armies, and police forces. It isn't like people might have nefarious reasons for wanting guns.

Conservatives believe that their fucking right to own guns is absolute even when threatens our rights and the rights of our loved ones. Now these bastards believe it is a fundamental human right to own guns but that it isn't a fundamental human right to be secure in our persons knowing that if we own one gun that we and our families will be safe because someone like snowman who is clearly as fucking unhinged as those whom he votes for having enough to take on an armed force. We want to be able to walk down the street safely knowing that he doesn't have enough weapons in his trunk to take on an entire police force. To watch as a couple of heavily armed men with body armor take on an entire police force in a shootout should tell us the threat posed by these right wing nuts who believe the right to own guns is absolute.

There is good in balancing all of our rights but these kind of people don't want to balance our rights instead in placing their rights ahead of ours they violate our rights. They want to force us to accept their rights as they stand and force us to give up our rights in order for them to have theirs and this is something we must reject. If their exercise of their 2nd amendment right violates my rights then they can take their 2nd amendment and shove it up their asses.

Ya, your right, we are over run with militias and vigilante groups. They are everywhere right? Less people die each year due to firearms then due to car crashes. A LOT less.

It is estimated there are well over 200million weapons in private hands in this country. Yet only around 14000 die a year to firearms and of those about 10000 are not justified. Do the math brainiac. Last statistic I saw more murders were committed without the use of a firearm then with.

By the way the math is .005 of 1 percent of the population. Lets take the 30k figure some people toss around....even that is just .015 of 1 percent. Accidents are even lower, around 1000 year, that is .0005 of 1 percent.

Using your logic we need to outlaw motor vehicles before we outlaw guns,since closer to 50 thousand die a year in accidents alone. Your more likely to die in a car accident then get shot. 3 to 1 more likely.

Yup that sure is a good reason to strip us of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Ninja]

I wouldn't waste your time, RGS.

People like Edward live to tell others what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

Edward has a history of advocating the denial of the Bill of Rights to those with whom he disagrees.

The similarity between Edward and the "right wing nuts" he rails against is uncanny.

 

[Edward]

Ya, your right, we are over run with militias and vigilante groups. They are everywhere right? Less people die each year due to firearms then due to car crashes. A LOT less.

That makes a lost of sense. How many people die or don't die due to firearms compared to other forms of death have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Indeed, more people die due to guns each year than do from meotors hitting their homes but you don't see me making that argument do you because unlike you I am not a retard who makes stupid comparisons.

It is estimated there are well over 200million weapons in private hands in this country. Yet only around 14000 die a year to firearms and of those about 10000 are not justified. Do the math brainiac. Last statistic I saw more murders were committed without the use of a firearm then with.

I am so glad you can pull numbers out of your ass because I don't see how they matter here but you are a fucking retard who likes to quote numbers to further your ideological opinion when that opinion violates my rights. I have no problem with you doing so since it only makes you look foolish.

By the way the math is .005 of 1 percent of the population. Lets take the 30k figure some people toss around....even that is just .015 of 1 percent. Accidents are even lower, around 1000 year, that is .0005 of 1 percent.

Are you done quoting statistics to do nothing more than advance your own opinion because I will tell you what I think of them: THEY ARE FUCKING TOOLS OF ASSHOLES WHO DON'T HAVE A REAL ARGUMENT OTHER THAN THAT THEY WANT THEIR OPINION TO BE RIGHT SO THEY TROLL THE INTERNET AND PULL OUT A CALCULATOR TO MAKE THEMSELVES AND THEIR RETARDED OPINION APPEAR RIGHT. IF THEY ARE REALLY FORTUNATE THEY CAN QUOTE A STUDY WRITTEN BY A RETARD LIKE THEM WHO DECIDED TO SIT DOWN AND PULL NUMBERS OUT OF HIS ASS. People on both sides of this very issue do this and they are retarded for doing so. It shows nothing more than that people know how to "appeal to authority."

Using your logic we need to outlaw motor vehicles before we outlaw guns,since closer to 50 thousand die a year in accidents alone. Your more likely to die in a car accident then get shot. 3 to 1 more likely.

Hello asshole. That isn't my fucking logic you fucking shithead who likes to twist what others say instead of listening to them like you do with fuckers who run for office and seek your retarded vote and who quote statistics like you do that agree with them. Now run off and run for office. I am sure that there are dickheads who agree with you who would love to hear your statistics. As for me, my argument has nothing to do with this and I for one will not let you pull another "I HAVE TO BE RIGHT SO I WILL TROLL THE INTERNET TO FIND PROOF OF MY OPINION PUT OUT BY THOSE WHO AGREE WITH ME. GOD BLESS THE ADVENT OF THE INTERNET AND MY ABILITY TO GOOGLE.

Yup that sure is a good reason to strip us of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I have never argued that we should be strip of any constitutional right instead I AM SAYING THAT WHEN YOUR EXERCISE OF IT VIOLATE MY OTHER RIGHTS YOU CAN TAKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR TYRANNICAL ASS. This is about YOU PUTTING YOUR RIGHTS AHEAD OF MINE AND USING THE CONSTITUTION AS A WEAPON WHEN IN REALITY THE DRAFTERS OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT WERE REJECTS LIKE YOU WHO DECICED THAT THEY WOULD FORCE THOSE OF US WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU TO ABIDE BY THEIR FUCKING TYRANNICAL DECREES. WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS. THE BASTARDS WHO WROTE THE 2ND AMENDMENT DIDN'T CONSIDER THOSE DID THEY INSTEAD THEY LIKE YOU CONSIDERED ONLY THEIR RIGHTS AND I SPIT IN THEIR FACES LIKE I DO YOURS. Now make a real argument other than that your constitutional rights can violate my fundamental rights.

Do you want a real discussion or are you just going to quote those who agreed with you in 1789 and included the 2nd amendment because they are also retards like you. So quote the 2nd amendment away because I for one don't hold those bastards in esteem when they are pond scum like you. You might as well be quoting an amendment you wrote dickhead because they are dickheads like you.

 

[Edward]

I wouldn't waste your time, RGS.

Of course not since bastards like you have spoken by your sacred 2nd amendment and the rest of us bitches shouldn't waste your time and God forbid us for thinking that a group of idiots like you are wrong about something.

People like Edward live to tell others what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

When you cut all the shit away you are a self-righteous motherfucker who likes to tell people what to think and when they don't you accuse them of doing something they haven't. I am not trying to tell others what they can and cannot do in their homes instead I AM TRYING TO DEFEND MY RIGHTS AGAINST FUCKERS LIKE YOU and you accuse me of doing something I am not when ALL I AM DOING IS TRYING TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MINE FROM YOU AND YOURS.

Edward has a history of advocating the denial of the Bill of Rights to those with whom he disagrees.

That would be you who advocates denying others their fundamental rights and then accusing others of doing so because they won't sit back as those who want their rights to prevail over the rights of others. This makes you feel good and allows you to go on violating others rights via your fucking Bill of Rights and we must simply accept it because some fucker like you decided in 1789 to violate the rights of those of us who disagree with shitheads like you. Indeed, I condemn them like I do you. You might as well have been them and wrote it since they are no different than you. When my rights are being violated I will protest loudly and if you don't like it you can go burn in hell. What I advocate is protecting my rights from people like you and I will not sit back as you lie and twist things you fucking mini-tryant. You can take the Bill of Rights you use to violate other rights and shove it up your tyrannical ass. There is much good in it but when tyrants like you use it to violate the rights of others it is good for nothing. I will not let you use the Constitution as a weapon any longer motherfucker so that you can advance your rights over mine. THE RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS DON'T SUPERCEDE MY OTHER RIGHTS. THIS IS A TYRANNICAL BALANCE OF RIGHTS AND I WON'T STAND BY AND HAVE MY RIGHTS RELEGATED TO SECOND-TIER.

The similarity between Edward and the "right wing nuts" he rails against is uncanny.

Good for you. Now that you have given us your opinion and made yourself feel all fuzzy inside you can tell me what I think in other areas as well. What must I do not be be similar to those "right wing nuts" I rail against? I want to be so right and that means I have to be like you and agree with you and be okay with the Bill of Rights violating my other rights. When I object to the very Bill of Rights violating my rights I somehow seek to deny those who disagree with me their rights when in reality those who seek to exercise their rights under the Bill of Rights are violating my rights in doing so.