Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the current argument of choice by the left. So there by we can make it illegal for the common citizen to own them. The founders never could have imagined or conceived of the internet, industrialized printing presses, TV or Radio. So there by the logic of the left only the police and Military need these media of mass publication with their high capacity of reach. When the first amendment was written, it would take days to print a few hand bills, now it can be shown in real time. The founders never intended for this to be the case.
We must have common sense speech regulation to stop all the talk and ideas from coming out so fast. How can a government or military respond to ideas from a high capacity media? They are simply out gunned.
This is the current argument of choice by the left. So there by we can make it illegal for the common citizen to own them. The founders never could have imagined or conceived of the internet, industrialized printing presses, TV or Radio. So there by the logic of the left only the police and Military need these media of mass publication with their high capacity of reach. When the first amendment was written, it would take days to print a few hand bills, now it can be shown in real time. The founders never intended for this to be the case.
We must have common sense speech regulation to stop all the talk and ideas from coming out so fast. How can a government or military respond to ideas from a high capacity media? They are simply out gunned.
I disagree with your logic. Indeed, I see few Democrats or liberals calling for a true 'ban' on most weapons (you always have a few nutters). People of both political parties have always agreed that some weapons should not be in private hands (again, you always have a few nutters to the contrary). Lately, the issue has been widening registration/background checks, and limiting the size of magazines.
I have heard some liberals poke fun at those whom claim that only the 'original intent' of the Framers is applicable to interpreting the Constitution: hence, since 'free speech' was limited, back in the day, to newspapers (or broadsheets), letters, and the spoken word, then modern methods like electronic emails, the internet, etc, are outside of the free speech protection.
You have organizations, like the ACLU, that argue that one does not look at what methods of speech were available when the Constitution was written, but the underlying meaning: that methods of communication be protected by the First Amendment. I agree with that theory. I believe most people do so, including the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Court was quick to rule that movies, radio broadcasts, etc, were covered by the First Amendment.
Most reasonable people also subscribe to the viewpoint that the Second Amendment does indeed cover modern firearms. I bet you would be hard-pressed to actually find any responsible person that would claim it only applies to the muskets available back then. Again, you look at the underlying meaning of the Amendment.
That the Court has ruled that there are exceptions to free speech, right to bear arms, etc, is common knowledge.
The next time you begin to believe that 'the left' claims that the First Amendment only applies to the methods of speech available back in 1781, do some actual, deep reading about the various Court cases involving this subject. Also pursue the news, and you will often find groups like the ACLU arguing that Free Speech covers all sorts of methods never dreamed of by the Framers.
This is the current argument of choice by the left. So there by we can make it illegal for the common citizen to own them. The founders never could have imagined or conceived of the internet, industrialized printing presses, TV or Radio. So there by the logic of the left only the police and Military need these media of mass publication with their high capacity of reach. When the first amendment was written, it would take days to print a few hand bills, now it can be shown in real time. The founders never intended for this to be the case.
We must have common sense speech regulation to stop all the talk and ideas from coming out so fast. How can a government or military respond to ideas from a high capacity media? They are simply out gunned.
.................... and they never could have forseen jet aircraft, tanks, aircraft carriers, nukes and rocket launchers.
The goal of the founding fathers was to create parity between the arms of the citizens and the government. Currently, we, as citizens, are in a much more disadvantageous position to resist the government than were citizens of the late 1700s.
Given that, the founding fathers would probably be shocked that citizens are prohibited, by the government, from owning many types of weapons.
If the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be less well armed than the government, the 2nd amendment would have been the right to bear bows and arrows or stones, not firearms. Wake up.
The second amendment was created so that the people could resist and overthrow a federal government that usurps too much power. You cannot do that if the fed carries a machine gun and the people can only have a single shot rifle.
No..... But they clearly saw tyranny first hand. They knew might was not exclusive to the central government, that one day they might try and control the people and take their freedoms.
.................... and they never could have forseen jet aircraft, tanks, aircraft carriers, nukes and rocket launchers.
The goal of the founding fathers was to create parity between the arms of the citizens and the government. Currently, we, as citizens, are in a much more disadvantageous position to resist the government than were citizens of the late 1700s.
Given that, the founding fathers would probably be shocked that citizens are prohibited, by the government, from owning many types of weapons.
If the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be less well armed than the government, the 2nd amendment would have been the right to bear bows and arrows or stones, not firearms. Wake up.
Well if the liberal way of thinking is true, then the Internet may be more dangerous to us then any AR. So we should only allow the police and Military to use and have it.
Honestly, with this line of thinking private individuals should be able to own everything up to and including nuclear weapons. After all the government has them.
It is lunacy not to consider the fact that more lethal weaponry should require more responsible ownership.
I can't go out and drive an 18 wheeler just because I can afford one. I have to get a CDL and some training. Weaponry should work the same way IMO.
Furthermore, the idea that the internet is the equivelant of a weapon is silly on it's face or that the 1st and 2nd ammendments can be measured in this way.
But this is another area that the gun lobby has done an about face. 30 years ago the gun lobby didn't believe that violence in movies or television influenced people to do violence with guns.
They could have never foreseen the cesspools of violence and illegitimacy our inner cities would become.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
