The test of a real American is supporting the Rights of people you disagree with.
13-year old not allowed to fly American flag at school.
- Thread starter Tiberius Jim
- Start date
A test Sub-commander there failed and for which he received a note that said "I need to see you and one or both your parents in the office."
Because it reads like a parody of left-wing sensibilities. It's OK to burn the flag -- as long as you do it in a way that doesn't adversely affect the environment. We demand GREEN flag burning!
You know--that's actually a sensible position. So I'm not sure why I find it so amusing. But I do.
BTW, I personally have no issue at all with flag burning as a form of protest. As long as you're not trespassing or destroying public property or someone else's private property, go ahead and torch away. No skin off my ass.
Do you have to work hard to come up with these oh-so-clever bits of smarminess or does being an ass just come naturally?
I think we've clearly ascertained that I can reluctantly accept a certain degree of this as inevitable. I stated that while it should never be done, if it is it must be done in a reasonably orderly fashion and in accordance with common sense safety. In case you hadn't read all that.
But by all means, go ahead and mock me if it makes you feel better. If the highlight of your day is practicing being an asshole then clearly you need your happy-time.
Of course I have to wonder whether or not you'd respect my 2nd Amendment rights. Frequently these statements come with political exceptions.
Eh, I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment. But I recognize there are gun size, caliber, and intensity of the weapon restrictions and location of carry restrictions that are legal as long as they are reasonable (even the conservative members of the Supreme Court have recognized this). In addition, gun registration isn't unreasonable either from a second amendment point of view. And it's important to keep in mind that words are not inherently dangerous, while guns are. In that context, the reasonable restriction requirement is far, far broader than the reasonable restriction requirement for speech.
A certain degree of that is true. But registration doesn't make sense in many cases. And anything below 20mm is considered small arms and shouldn't be subject to interference. Neither should size or appearance. Or magazine size, manner of feed, cosmetics, etc.
While words cannot directly kill, they can cause their own share of damage. Incitement, libel, slander, and 'fire' in a crowded theater.
Frequently those who most loudly trumpet the First Amendment want to undo the Second. Thats my point there. You're reasonable, but its the others who I have a degree of suspicion toward.
The reason people who are (generally) on the left tend to oppose the second amendment is because it's a really badly written amendment. Even the drafters couldn't agree on what it was for. Some wanted to protect states rights and allow them to summon militias to fight the federal government, others wanted to use it in case citizens wanted to fight oppressive governments either on the state or federal level. So they drafted an amendment that people weren't sure how to apply.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to own a gun for self defense is protected in the constitution, but they ruled on it last year. That's quite a long time. People who said gun rights only existed for militias might not have been technically wrong. So they were anti-gun, but didn't think they were anti-2nd amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to own a gun for self defense is protected in the constitution, but they ruled on it last year. That's quite a long time. People who said gun rights only existed for militias might not have been technically wrong. So they were anti-gun, but didn't think they were anti-2nd amendment.
Thats not a correct view though. The US Code specifically defines the Reserve Militia as every man between 17 and 45. So even if it did mean only militia members that still covers a huge segment of the population. Of course there'd be problems over gender and age equality there.
ANd I think the writing is clear enough.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In period language 'well-regulated' meant equipped. And all of the other amendments in the BoR use 'the people' to mean each individual. That was also ascertained in Duncan v. Louisiana IIRC.
And as I already said, the US Code makes it clear that the militia is largely unorganized. So to break it down:
"A well-regulated militia"
All citizens capable of bearing arms who are properly equipped
"being necessary to the security of a free state"
No explanation required here
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of each individual to own a firearm and use it in service of the country must not be interfered with.
I think its clear that the newest notions of gun control far surpass mere infringement.
The point being there were supreme court precedents that said otherwise. People interpreted it as meaning "the right to use firearms for militias". Since state militias don't really have a function anymore, they argued it did not recognize any current practical right, but, instead, something that isn't very relevant today (like the third amendment).
Like I said, McDonald v. Chicago was this year. Before that point, people didn't think it was a slam dunk that the 2nd amendment should recognize the right to own a firearm for self-defense. Actually, although I haven't read the case, I believe there's a bit of a 9th amendment claim stuck in there too.
Like I said, McDonald v. Chicago was this year. Before that point, people didn't think it was a slam dunk that the 2nd amendment should recognize the right to own a firearm for self-defense. Actually, although I haven't read the case, I believe there's a bit of a 9th amendment claim stuck in there too.
Infraction for flaming. SPOCKED gave you a friendly to cool off earlier here, so you should have known better.
Comments to PM.
I'll take that. I shouldn't have lost my temper, but I'll gladly take whatever consequences come from it.
Now, on the topic of most recent discussion:
There weren't any precedents for that view, there was simply no discussion of it in court. Certainly American culture and laws since the writing of the amendment have been in accordance with the current ruling by the court.
Arguably United States v. Miller addressed limiting guns only to militia use. It's a genuinely badly written amendment. If it were intended to protect gun use for all purposes, it shouldn't have a preamble, if it were intended to limit use to militias, it shouldn't say "shall not be infringed"
Miller was more about usefulness given the definition of militia under the USC. The People argued that a sawed off shotgun wasn't protected by 2A because it wasn't useful in a military role.
So by court precedent, 'assault weapons' (which are totally made up IMO) should be made more widely available to men between 17 and 45. And now, thanks to new rulings, to everyone.
Now that's American thinking.
It's predictable that you would choose that particular Amendment to quiz me on, however you are about to be disappointed; I certainly do respect the Second Amendment. Of course, Alidar is correct that there must be registration and controls over arms. The average person shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons or bazookas or anything like that, and allowed arms should be licensed.
Now that's American thinking.
It's predictable that you would choose that particular Amendment to quiz me on, however you are about to be disappointed; I certainly do respect the Second Amendment. Of course, Alidar is correct that there must be registration and controls over arms. The average person shouldn't be allowed automatic weapons or bazookas or anything like that, and allowed arms should be licensed.
If license are on a 'shall-issue' basis with no charges or fees and the current Class III system is kept in place (preferably with renewed importation) then luckily we'd agree on something.
People love their guns because it makes them feel important. "Others are out to get me! I need to arm up to protect myself!"
but just remember - guns don't kill people, fathers with attractive teenage daughters do
Last edited:
LOL!
Similar threads
