Free Speach?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And those rights can be curtailed or modified under certain circumstances - hence all the 2nd Amendment threads.

The reason there is so much debate over Amendment 2 is because it has yet to be interpreted and is worded in an ambiguous manner.

Well you are imperfect too. The 2nd is NOT abiguous at all. That ambiguity has been "created" by those with a political agenda to remover the right.

If you stick to your "ambiguous" position you must place the same on all the other rights as well. The context of the amendments does not change from one to the other. As stated by many in most of the law schools

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

While I have to admit I wonder how these kids are being raised (and it is NONE of my business) I tend to feel they have the right. I feel the school is out of line here. Comments? This one tears at me a bit......

I agree - the principal went too far. There are so many other ways to handle this.

However, is it possible that the kid had other disciplinary problems and this was just the last straw?

The later point you made here came to my mind as well. It seems that in most instances there are other factors which many of us know nothing of.

That created a reaction that in the teachers hind site, was most likley flawed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So if there's a fire drill, you have no problem with half of the kids doing as they please, instead of lining up outside so a proper rollcall can be taken?

What does that have to do with freedom of speech or freedom of expression?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The 2nd is NOT abiguous at all.

Sure it is. Why is there anything written about the well regulated militia? Why doesn't it simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? That would be unambiguous. It's actual form is ambiguous.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Quote

The 2nd is NOT abiguous at all.

Sure it is. Why is there anything written about the well regulated militia? Why doesn't it simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? That would be unambiguous. It's actual form is ambiguous.

I agree with Rush. And before I have to go take a shower to wash away the dirty feeling that's given me I'll explain my reasoning.

The first section "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," reads like context only. It's the reason for the amendment. The second section "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is plain as day. The only ambiguity I can see is whether the right to "bear arms" limits it to weapons you can physically carry.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I agree with Rush. And before I have to go take a shower to wash away the dirty feeling that's given me I'll explain my reasoning.

The first section "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," reads like context only. It's the reason for the amendment. The second section "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is plain as day. The only ambiguity I can see is whether the right to "bear arms" limits it to weapons you can physically carry.

Others interpret it differently, and also present arguments as reasonable as yours. Thus, there is ambiguity.

Personally, I read it in the context of Article 1 Section 8 "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" meaning that the people have the right (and collective obligation) to maintain a militia for the nation's defense, since it was intended that Congress be forbidden from maintaining a standing Army.

Hopefully the DC case will offer an interpretation and clarification. (Undoubtedly they won't interpret it as I do, since threatening the use of military force has become such a large part of our foreign policy, too often displacing diplomacy. )

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DZJ 0]

On a different note, what's the Constitutional basis for making kids pledge allegiance in the first place? I've always thought the very idea flies in the face of America's proud history of permitting and protecting dissent, and of promoting individualism.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Personally, I read it in the context of Article 1 Section 8 "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" meaning that the people have the right (and collective obligation) to maintain a militia for the nation's defense,

Ok - so what?

It is still clearly stated in the 2nd itself that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed? It doesn't matter what the reason is, it is still written.

Quote

Others interpret it differently, and also present arguments as reasonable as yours. Thus, there is ambiguity.

Just because some people force different meanings from the amendment doesn't mean the amendment itself is ambiguous.

I think the reason that people 'interpret' it differently is because weaponry has progressed to such a degree that free and unrestricted access to whatever kind of weapons you want is no longer practical. Therefore (since there wouldn't be a hope in hell of changing it) they need to be able to interpret the 2nd to say something other than what it actually says.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It is still clearly stated in the 2nd itself that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed? It doesn't matter what the reason is, it is still written.

It does matter. Does the right belong to individuals, or does it belong to the people collectively, as a well regulated militia? It is not clear on this point. It is irrelevant which interpretation one believes; the fact that it is open to to such different, yet reasonable, interpretations makes the amendment ambiguous.

Let's assume it is an individual right, for argument's sake. Does it imply that individuals can keep and bear any kind of arms? Does Joe Blow have the right, under Amendment 2, to build and stockpile pipe bombs or chemical weapons? Can he keep a howitzer in his backyard? How about a mortar? Is a SAW acceptable? If there is a line, where is it drawn, and by whom? Does restricting the arms to muskets preserve the right?

The amendment is simply not clear as it is written.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I read it in the context of Article 1 Section 8 "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" meaning that the people have the right (and collective obligation) to maintain a militia for the nation's defense,

Ok - so what?

It is still clearly stated in the 2nd itself that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed? It doesn't matter what the reason is, it is still written.

Quote

Others interpret it differently, and also present arguments as reasonable as yours. Thus, there is ambiguity.

Just because some people force different meanings from the amendment doesn't mean the amendment itself is ambiguous.

I think the reason that people 'interpret' it differently is because weaponry has progressed to such a degree that free and unrestricted access to whatever kind of weapons you want is no longer practical. Therefore (since there wouldn't be a hope in hell of changing it) they need to be able to interpret the 2nd to say something other than what it actually says.

If it were unambiguous it wouldn't be up before the Supremes for resolution.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

It does matter. Does the right belong to individuals, or does it belong to the people collectively, as a well regulated militia? It is not clear on this point. It is irrelevant which interpretation one believes; the fact that it is open to to such different, yet reasonable, interpretations makes the amendment ambiguous.

I don't think it is reasonable. I don't see how you can argue that the right only applies to a well regulated militia without employing large amounts of intentional intellectual dishonesty.

Quote

Let's assume it is an individual right, for argument's sake. Does it imply that individuals can keep and bear any kind of arms? Does Joe Blow have the right, under Amendment 2, to build and stockpile pipe bombs or chemical weapons? Can he keep a howitzer in his backyard? How about a mortar? Is a SAW acceptable? If there is a line, where is it drawn, and by whom? Does restricting the arms to muskets preserve the right?

It says arms. It doesn't say 'these types of arms' or 'except these types of arms', does it? The questions you bring up are a product of changing technology rendering the 2nd amendment obsolete, not the amendment itself being ambiguous.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

If it were unambiguous it wouldn't be up before the Supremes for resolution.

I think the reason that people 'interpret' it differently is because weaponry has progressed to such a degree that free and unrestricted access to whatever kind of weapons you want is no longer practical. Therefore (since there wouldn't be a hope in hell of changing it) they need to be able to interpret the 2nd to say something other than what it actually says.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I don't think it is reasonable.

I would disagree wholeheartedly, as would many others. Hence, the amendment is ambiguous (i.e. open to more than one interpretation). That so many legal minds have read the 2nd Amendment and not interpreted it in the same, or similar, ways is proof of that ambiguity. It doesn't matter which interpretation one considers to be the correct one, failure to acknowledge that other reasonable interpretations exist is simply living in denial.

Quote

It says arms. It doesn't say 'these types of arms' or 'except these types of arms', does it? The questions you bring up are a product of changing technology rendering the 2nd amendment obsolete, not the amendment itself being ambiguous.

Actually, the questions I brought up pertain to the meaning of infringe. I am intrigued about your of that the second amendment being obsolete. Could you expound, please?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I think the reason that people 'interpret' it differently …

So, you acknowledge that different people interpret the 2nd Amendment in different ways? Being open to more than one interpretation is the very definition of ambiguous.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I agree with Rush. And before I have to go take a shower to wash away the dirty feeling that's given me I'll explain my reasoning.

The first section "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," reads like context only. It's the reason for the amendment. The second section "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is plain as day. The only ambiguity I can see is whether the right to "bear arms" limits it to weapons you can physically carry.

Others interpret it differently, and also present arguments as reasonable as yours. Thus, there is ambiguity.

Personally, I read it in the context of Article 1 Section 8 "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" meaning that the people have the right (and collective obligation) to maintain a militia for the nation's defense, since it was intended that Congress be forbidden from maintaining a standing Army.

Hopefully the DC case will offer an interpretation and clarification. (Undoubtedly they won't interpret it as I do, since threatening the use of military force has become such a large part of our foreign policy, too often displacing diplomacy. )

Only those with the political agenda to disarm the people look at it the way you frame it here.

Just for fun, google the great legal schools law professors opinions around the 2nd. There are very very few who, once they take the time to study it, think the 2nd was any thing other than a persons right as written. Even many largly in favor of disarming the people.

Fun stuff the read

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

One a different note, what's the Constitutional basis for making kids pledge allegiance in the first place? I've always thought the very idea flies in the face of America's proud history of permitting and protecting dissent, and of promoting individualism.

You framed this very nicely. While those under age 18 have different enumerated rights I was wondering what many thought of this specific instance.

Some good thoughts being passed here.

I still have mixed feelings on this but I feel I know what is right. I also "feel" there are many parts of this story (parts that would put these kids actions context) that we may not now or ever know

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

It is still clearly stated in the 2nd itself that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed? It doesn't matter what the reason is, it is still written.

It does matter. Does the right belong to individuals, or does it belong to the people collectively, as a well regulated militia? It is not clear on this point. It is irrelevant which interpretation one believes; the fact that it is open to to such different, yet reasonable, interpretations makes the amendment ambiguous.

Let's assume it is an individual right, for argument's sake. Does it imply that individuals can keep and bear any kind of arms? Does Joe Blow have the right, under Amendment 2, to build and stockpile pipe bombs or chemical weapons? Can he keep a howitzer in his backyard? How about a mortar? Is a SAW acceptable? If there is a line, where is it drawn, and by whom? Does restricting the arms to muskets preserve the right?

The amendment is simply not clear as it is written.

Better stated, YOU are not clear on the meaning. Most constituional schoolars are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

It does matter. Does the right belong to individuals, or does it belong to the people collectively, as a well regulated militia? It is not clear on this point. It is irrelevant which interpretation one believes; the fact that it is open to to such different, yet reasonable, interpretations makes the amendment ambiguous.

I don't think it is reasonable. I don't see how you can argue that the right only applies to a well regulated militia without employing large amounts of intentional intellectual dishonesty.

And some would say the failure to see that ambiguity as reasonable is an example of intellectual dishonesty. All the more evidence that the issue at stake is indeed ambiguous.

[rushmc 23]

An interesting reading

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

failure to acknowledge that other reasonable interpretations exist is simply living in denial.

I disagree, it is written very clearly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The problem is that in the modern world the right to keep and bear some types of arms must be infringed, so people need to force the wording to accept different meanings than that which is clearly written.

Quote

I am intrigued about your of that the second amendment being obsolete. Could you expound, please?

Because it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. With modern weapons technology that is simply not practical. I don't think you can let anyone at all own whatever military hardware they want.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

An interesting reading

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

It is, indeed. The listing of the various state versions of the right to bear arms actually lends credibility to my own interpretation of the 2nd. However, some of the author's evidence does not support his assertion that the wording of the 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous and provides a strict individual right to bear arms.

For example:

It's widely agreed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). (emphasis mine -jcd11235)

"As allowed by law" and "well regulated" both seem to indicate that the government can, in fact, regulate the keeping of arms. I'm sure not everyone would agree, though.

Here is a 1905 Kansas Supreme Court decision that treats the 2nd Amendment, as well as Section 4 of Kansas' Bill of Rights, as a guarantee of collective, not individual rights.

In fact, it seems there has long been debate among legal minds regarding whether the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right or an individual right. Thus, the amendment is ambiguous.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I disagree, it is written very clearly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The problem is that in the modern world the right to keep and bear some types of arms must be infringed, so people need to force the wording to accept different meanings than that which is clearly written.

Why is it that only two of the federal circuits recognize it as an individual right if it is not ambiguous? The simple fact is that if the amendment were not ambiguous, it would not be open to more than one interpretation. That the majority of the federal circuits do not interpret it in the manner you claim to be the only reasonable interpretation, I can't help but to conclude that you are arguing with emotion rather than reason. There is absolutely no doubt that the amendment has been interpreted in more than one way. It is highly improbable, to the extent of being virtually impossible, that all of the judges presiding over respective precedent cases did not believe their reasoning to be justified.

By the very definition of the word, the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. To argue otherwise would be like arguing that a typical summer, noon sky is blaze orange when viewed by a typical person with the naked eye.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

For example:


It's widely agreed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights.


English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). (emphasis mine -jcd11235)


"As allowed by law"

Is irrelevant, because it's not in the constitution. If they wanted it, would they not have copied it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Why is it that only two of the federal circuits recognize it as an individual right if it is not ambiguous?

For the reasons I've put down. The 2nd amendment as it is written just doesn't fly with modern weaponry. You'll never be able to get enough support to have it re-written so it needs to be very, very, very creatively read and re-interpreted.

Quote

That the majority of the federal circuits do not interpret it in the manner you claim to be the only reasonable interpretation, I can't help but to conclude that you are arguing with emotion rather than reason.

What emotion? I'm not in favour of people being allowed to own whatever weapons they want, but I do think that's what the 2nd says.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Is irrelevant, because it's not in the constitution. If they wanted it, would they not have copied it?

Agreed. But, since it was one of the rationalizations the the 2nd Amendment was not ambiguous in the example to which rushmc linked to in the post to which I replied, I felt it worthy of a response showing the absurdity of such a claim.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!