Abridge 1st Amendment and infringe, 2nd Amendment, what does it mean?

[independentusa]

The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?

 

[DickBanks]

The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?

Haven't thought much about the First Amendment the last few days. No one is dying for it presently...

As for the 2nd, I think that Justice Scalia is stretching the intent a bit. I think the wording of it is very clear and specific:

"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."

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

Filling out forms constitutes infringement, because based upon what I write on that FFL, you can deny me my right to purchase a firearm.

The Second Amendment protected Nicolas Cruz when he purchased the AR-15. It protected him when he removed it from his home. It protected him as he approached the school. It only stopped protecting him when he pulled the trigger, and by then, it was too late.

And that's why the Second Amendment needs to be repealed.

A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.

 

[celticwar17]

Haven't thought much about the First Amendment the last few days. No one is dying for it presently...

As for the 2nd, I think that Justice Scalia is stretching the intent a bit. I think the wording of it is very clear and specific:

"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."

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

Filling out forms constitutes infringement, because based upon what I write on that FFL, you can deny me my right to purchase a firearm.

The Second Amendment protected Nicolas Cruz when he purchased the AR-15. It protected him when he removed it from his home. It protected him as he approached the school. It only stopped protecting him when he pulled the trigger, and by then, it was too late.

And that's why the Second Amendment needs to be repealed.

A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.

At least you understand that If the 2nd Amendment were read as merely granting states the right to maintain a militia, it would contradict Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the states from keeping "troops, or ships of war in time of peace," "without the consent of the Congress." But the right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment goes beyond merely what is necessary for a State to form a militia when needed. As a People's Right, necessary aspects of it exist regardless of whether Congress gives its consent for states to keep troops in time of peace or not. Congress could prevent a state from forming a militia, but this would not affect the right of the people to remain armed, and to be ready whenever the State called upon them to join a militia, or to protect their liberties in other ways contemplated by the Founders.

If you want guns to be banned/heavily regulated... you need an amendment. Trying to manipulate and warp interpretation of the constitution and presidence is the WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL way of going about making change... you need an amendment. If you think you are right, convince the American people... that is your job if you want change. Don't hijack the process.

 

[chuckiechan]

The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?

The difference between an originalist and a non-originalist is the "non" picks and chooses the amendments he likes, and disparages the others. One will argue we should outlaw semi automatic guns, the other will argue we change the first amendment while we are at it.

The Constitution starts with "We, the people", not "We the SCOTUS".

 

[jonny5]

The Second Amendment protected Nicolas Cruz when he purchased the AR-15. It protected him when he removed it from his home. It protected him as he approached the school. It only stopped protecting him when he pulled the trigger, and by then, it was too late.

And that's why the Second Amendment needs to be repealed.

A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.

Following that thought, when a well regulated militia becomes once against necessary to the security of a free state, will we be able to put that back in, or will it also be too late?

 

[DickBanks]

Following that thought, when a well regulated militia becomes once against necessary to the security of a free state, will we be able to put that back in, or will it also be too late?

The US Military is the strongest military in the world. Every one of its members is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

So I will say it again. A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.

 

[DickBanks]

If you want guns to be banned/heavily regulated... you need an amendment...

The 28th Amendment would abolish the 2nd Amendment, and allow Congress and the States to enact sensible gun legislation. An uphill battle for sure, but hardly a "highjacking" of the process--we've done it 27 times.

 

[celticwar17]

The 28th Amendment would abolish the 2nd Amendment, and allow Congress and the States to enact sensible gun legislation. An uphill battle for sure, but hardly a "highjacking" of the process--we've done it 27 times.

I wasn't saying adding an amendment was hijacking the process.

I said that trying to manipulate supreme court interpretations and precedent of the constitution and/or flat out ignoring it was.

 

[jonny5]

The US Military is the strongest military in the world. Every one of its members is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.

So I will say it again. A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.

And what happens when there is no more protection, a govt gets elected on some reactionary security platform, weakens the military and creates a state security system where its not convenient for them to have armed political opponents? Too late? This scenario has happened several times in the last century. The war on terrorism or 'gun violence epidemic' are obvious excuses to implement such a system.

Meanwhile, we have 300 million guns in civilian hands, and 99% populace never uses them for violent behavior. Youre seeking to punish EVERYONE for the actions of a few.

 

[DickBanks]

And what happens when there is no more protection, a govt gets elected on some reactionary security platform, weakens the military and creates a state security system where its not convenient for them to have armed political opponents? Too late? This scenario has happened several times in the last century. The war on terrorism or 'gun violence epidemic' are obvious excuses to implement such a system.

Meanwhile, we have 300 million guns in civilian hands, and 99% populace never uses them for violent behavior. Youre seeking to punish EVERYONE for the actions of a few.

I have a good friend, a veteran, who drives an Uber and carries a concealed handgun--here in Kansas he can do that without a permit. The Second Amendment DOES NOT protect him. I would like to see him keep his gun.
The Second Amendment, as I said before, DOES protect people who seek to purchase assault rifles and the like, and prevents sensible legislation to control them. An AR-15 is today's musket.

 

[DickBanks]

I wasn't saying adding an amendment was hijacking the process.

I said that trying to manipulate supreme court interpretations and precedent of the constitution and/or flat out ignoring it was.

OK, I get it now. I missed it before.

I just don't believe the Justices in DC vs. Heller were correct when the ruled that "the Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

I think that the "prefatory clause" was intended as complete justification for the "operative clause."

Hence protection of the deadlier version of today's available guns.

 

[independentusa]

I have a good friend, a veteran, who drives an Uber and carries a concealed handgun--here in Kansas he can do that without a permit. The Second Amendment DOES NOT protect him. I would like to see him keep his gun.
The Second Amendment, as I said before, DOES protect people who seek to purchase assault rifles and the like, and prevents sensible legislation to control them. An AR-15 is today's musket.

Lets see, a musket was one shot and a very good rifleman could maybe get two to three rounds off a minute. An Ar-15 can shoot up to 45 rounds a minute as long as you can pull the trigger. And you are telling me that they are similar in any way. The founding fathers never had any idea that we would develop such weapons. If they had I would suggest that they would have made sure that there was some control over such weapons. TO try and compare the weapons of the 1780's and today's weapons is like comparing a hand gernade and a nuclear bomb.

 

[jonny5]

I have a good friend, a veteran, who drives an Uber and carries a concealed handgun--here in Kansas he can do that without a permit. The Second Amendment DOES NOT protect him. I would like to see him keep his gun.
The Second Amendment, as I said before, DOES protect people who seek to purchase assault rifles and the like, and prevents sensible legislation to control them. An AR-15 is today's musket.

I dont get what point youre trying to make. The second amendment protects EVERYONE from tyranny. That is your friend or anyone who seeks to purchase assault rifles and the like. Any legislation that attempts to control it beyond preventing imminent violence or negligence is not sensible.

 

[jonny5]

Lets see, a musket was one shot and a very good rifleman could maybe get two to three rounds off a minute. An Ar-15 can shoot up to 45 rounds a minute as long as you can pull the trigger. And you are telling me that they are similar in any way. The founding fathers never had any idea that we would develop such weapons. If they had I would suggest that they would have made sure that there was some control over such weapons. TO try and compare the weapons of the 1780's and today's weapons is like comparing a hand gernade and a nuclear bomb.

The founders built in a way to amend the constitution if the people of the future wanted to do so. So lets take a vote. Do you think 3/4 of the states would give the federal govt power to ban modern rifles?

 

[DickBanks]

I dont get what point youre trying to make. The second amendment protects EVERYONE from tyranny.

Where in the Second amendment is "tyranny" mentioned?

"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."

The people that voted for this amendment weren't worried about "tyranny" any more than we are now. The were worried about having to fight the British Empire, again. And they should have been. We had NO regular Military, and Britain had probably the most powerful military in the world. They needed assurances that they could maintain a "free State."

Remove the Second Amendment, and you remove all justification for people like Nicolas Cruz to own an AR-15. With the 2nd Amendment in place, he is completely protected.

The only TYRANT I see now is a sick kid with a semi-automatic rifle, angry at the world. Now THAT'S tyranny!

 

[independentusa]

The founders built in a way to amend the constitution if the people of the future wanted to do so. So lets take a vote. Do you think 3/4 of the states would give the federal govt power to ban modern rifles?

Not with the NRA owning them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gdgyva]

Haven't thought much about the First Amendment the last few days. No one is dying for it presently...

As for the 2nd, I think that Justice Scalia is stretching the intent a bit. I think the wording of it is very clear and specific:

"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."

Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

Filling out forms constitutes infringement, because based upon what I write on that FFL, you can deny me my right to purchase a firearm.

The Second Amendment protected Nicolas Cruz when he purchased the AR-15. It protected him when he removed it from his home. It protected him as he approached the school. It only stopped protecting him when he pulled the trigger, and by then, it was too late.

And that's why the Second Amendment needs to be repealed.

A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.

no issue

just get 3/4 of the states to agree with that position and you are home free

 

[DickBanks]

no issue

just get 3/4 of the states to agree with that position and you are home free

Yep. Probably won't happen for a LONG time. A lot of us have to die off. But there was a time when the majority thought slavery was OK, and that women shouldn't vote.

 

[jonny5]

Where in the Second amendment is "tyranny" mentioned?

"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."

The people that voted for this amendment weren't worried about "tyranny" any more than we are now. The were worried about having to fight the British Empire, again. And they should have been. We had NO regular Military, and Britain had probably the most powerful military in the world. They needed assurances that they could maintain a "free State."

Remove the Second Amendment, and you remove all justification for people like Nicolas Cruz to own an AR-15. With the 2nd Amendment in place, he is completely protected.

The only TYRANT I see now is a sick kid with a semi-automatic rifle, angry at the world. Now THAT'S tyranny!

the security of a free State

Right there.

 

[jonny5]

Not with the NRA owning them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you saying the NRA owns the voters who would vote on this?

 

[jonny5]

Yep. Probably won't happen for a LONG time. A lot of us have to die off. But there was a time when the majority thought slavery was OK, and that women shouldn't vote.

Well, until then...

 

[DickBanks]

Well, until then...

..our children continue to be in danger of being slaughtered.

 

[ludin]

Haven't thought much about the First Amendment the last few days. No one is dying for it presently...
As for the 2nd, I think that Justice Scalia is stretching the intent a bit. I think the wording of it is very clear and specific:
"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."
Infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

Filling out forms constitutes infringement, because based upon what I write on that FFL, you can deny me my right to purchase a firearm.
The Second Amendment protected Nicolas Cruz when he purchased the AR-15. It protected him when he removed it from his home. It protected him as he approached the school. It only stopped protecting him when he pulled the trigger, and by then, it was too late.
And that's why the Second Amendment needs to be repealed.
A well regulated Militia IS NO LONGER necessary to the security of THIS free State.

Actually it is needed still. Tyranny is started by disarming of citizens.
Unarmed citizens are at the mercy of every element out there including their own government.

had people done their job then cruz would not have been able to purchase the gun to begin with.
his therapist failed to put his mental status, the FBI failed to conduct a proper investigation on 2 tips they
received about it.

Local law enforcement failed to do their job as well.

it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

PS when you want to start repealing rights then well
that means other rights can be repealed as well.

The 2nd amendment is not a limitation on citizens it is a limitation on government.

 

[jonny5]

..our children continue to be in danger of being slaughtered.

And even after. Except there wouldnt be anyone to defend them.

 

[danielpalos]

The 1st Amendment says that free speech shall not be abridged and yet the SCOTUS says that there are certain things you can not say, like yelling fire in a crowded theater due to a safety issue. The 2nd Amendment as now interpreted by SCOTUS says that owning arms is an individual right and it shall not be infringed. Yet, even Scalia said that reasonable guns laws would pass constitutional muster. The law outlawing automatic weapons seems to be one of those lwas that have passed. So what does abridged and infringed actually mean in these two amendments to the constitution? Does the public safety override the words abridged and infringed?

They mean, free political speech and well regulated militia shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.