In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

constitution...

dads-freeholddads-freehold Member Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭✭✭
greeetings, nice wall paper, but can any one tell me how many garrentees are granted in the first amendment? or in the second how many privileges are talked about?

Comments

  • warriorsfanwarriorsfan Member Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    1st Amendment has five guaranteed provisions. There was a poll conducted recently and only 1 in 1000 Americans could name all five provisions of the First Amendment. Many thought that the "right to own pets" was part of the First Amendment.

    The five are:

    Freedom of speech
    Freedom of the press
    Freedom of religion
    Freedom to assemble peacefully
    and Freedom to petition the government



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4761294.stm
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The Second Amendment contains ABSOLUTELY NO "Privileges"....
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Many thought that the "right to own pets" was part of the First Amendment.

    Actually, this would be one of those 9th Amendment issues.
  • dads-freeholddads-freehold Member Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    greetings fans, hey i want to say that all the answers were very good, not entirely correct but very good... warriorfan ; your answer is correct except there are garrentees but NO grants, the amendment RECOGNISE but don't grant (this is a legal term for inalliable rights). high ball ; correct but if this is true why do we push for ccw's (which are a privilage and taxed) by this i mean the right is to keep and bear (note it doesn't limit how one keeps or bears. and my question is does not taxing a right infringe on it by subjegating to an authority? gunphreak ; correct in that the right to have property is alluded to in the preamble of the dec of ind. ( pursuit of happiness), but that has never been completely addressed. and accually the the 9th is more for the doing than the having... and thanks to all that have commented you did well...
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Dadsf; [:D]

    T'would be to your advantage to read thru some of the threads...

    You would find that the matter of government licenses for guns,the "Stand your Ground" laws, the Castle Doctrines..have been somewhat addressed.

    My position is quite clear. By supporting these laws...we weaken our..and the Second Amendment..positions.
    We are ADMITTING that the Beast has authority over the CLEAR intent of the Constitution.

    As the cheering goes on...my feeling is...we will pay dearly for short term 'gains'.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dads-freehold
    greetings fans, hey i want to say that all the answers were very good, not entirely correct but very good... warriorfan ; your answer is correct except there are garrentees but NO grants, the amendment RECOGNISE but don't grant (this is a legal term for inalliable rights). high ball ; correct but if this is true why do we push for ccw's (which are a privilage and taxed) by this i mean the right is to keep and bear (note it doesn't limit how one keeps or bears. and my question is does not taxing a right infringe on it by subjegating to an authority? gunphreak ; correct in that the right to have property is alluded to in the preamble of the dec of ind. ( pursuit of happiness), but that has never been completely addressed. and accually the the 9th is more for the doing than the having... and thanks to all that have commented you did well...


    In red above.

    Quite correct; and in a logical, well-ordered and totally reasonable world, we who agree with you would spend our time, effort, money and political clout working on the gun rights/citizens rights problems working strictly with and from that fact. However, the left wing, liberals have preverted, corrupted and highjacked logic and common sense. For decades we conservities have had to function in a world where the true meaning of words, constitutional rights, and the meaning of some laws have been corrupted, distorted and misused by the liberals.

    Take the word "undocumented immigerant" for example. Liberals love that word because if used in the opening of an article or of an argument, the term paints the illegals aliens, not as criminal trepassers, but simply as good and honest visitors who somehow, someway lost, or don't have the proper paperwork to justify that their being in my country is legal. That automatically puts someone, who wants to argue against the illegal aliens, at a disavantage. Same with the term "assault weapons". For one thing a gun is not a "weapon" until it is used as such. Before that time it can be just a mechanical device that is being used as part of a gun collection, held for investment, used for parts, etc. But the true misused of the term is the "assault" part. I own an AR-15 and a semiauto version of an AK-47. Both rifles will only fired one shot per one trigger pull. Just as with every other gun I own and just as, except for a few special cases, every other gun owner I know of here on GB.com or in my town. Our guns only fire one shot for one trigger pull. That means my AR and my AK are NOT true assault weapons. They are merely rifles that LOOK like a true military assault weapon. In fact if a US or Arab soldier accidently was issued one of my "looks like an assault weapon", he would claim it didn't work properly because it will not fire fully automatic or even a three round burst. But the liberals have cleveraly tagged certain guns, that are no more dangerous than similar "untagged" guns, with a term that from the very start describes the innocent guns as being "evil". It makes it very, very difficult for a gun owners to argue for his right to own "assault weapons" and this is just how the liberals want it.

    And don't forget how the liberal, anti-gunners have perverted the second amendment by claiming it only allows the state governments to possess firearms in the form of the "militia". They make this claim despite the fact that when the second amendment was written, there WAS NOT militia, a.k.a. National Guard.

    My point is the liberals unfortuently have forced us conseratives to function within their twisted and perverted world. That means it is easier to get a CCW law/right passed than it is to go back and try and undo what the liberals have done to us. Hopefully that will change sometime.
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:My position is quite clear. By supporting these laws...we weaken our..and the Second Amendment..positions.
    We are ADMITTING that the Beast has authority over the CLEAR intent of the Constitution.

    Yet, you propose that we continue to feed the beast? Perhaps hoping that it will become fat, lazy, and complacent? Then we will strike? Maybe if we are still alive and capable.

    quote:My point is the liberals unfortuently have forced us conseratives to function within their twisted and perverted world. That means it is easier to get a CCW law/right passed than it is to go back and try and undo what the liberals have done to us. Hopefully that will change sometime.

    TR, my friend, you almost win the cigar, if the PC police hadn't banned them (except for those "funny" cigars, of course). Yet, we know that they will not change themselves, so it will be up to us to force them to change. Perhaps by getting a CCW we are making them think that they have won, yet, in the end, we are the ones with the guns. Our guns will be much more valuable than their piece of paper when the time comes for a "change". They may know what guns we have, and they may know where we keep them, but the bottom line is that they do not HAVE them. If they want them, they can come and get them.

    MOLON LABE!!!
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:WoundedWolf Posted - 05/15/2006 : 11:50:31 PM
    Yet, you propose that we continue to feed the beast? Perhaps hoping that it will become fat, lazy, and complacent? Then we will strike? Maybe if we are still alive and capable.
    Wherein do you find in ANY of my postings that I advocate 'feeding the Beast'..?
    Perhaps you consider my "Withdraw from the political arena" as being feeding the beast.??
    If so...remember..gorging oneself leads to a short life.....
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Highball once said:
    quote:We must obey the laws..at least up till they ban firearms.

    This is what I was refering to as "feeding the beast". By following their laws we are making them think that they are winning. Yet, we can also exploit their own loopholes until they have no choice but to outright ban firearms. Then we will know that the time for change has come.

    Do not take my questions as criticism. At this point, this may be our best course of action.

    "I have been told of a certain sea snake which has a very unusual method of attracting its prey. It will lie at the bottom of the ocean as if wounded. Then its enemies will approach, and yet it will lie quite still. And then its enemies will take little bites of it, and yet it remains still..."
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Forgive me.

    After what seems a life time of being poked with sharp sticks....I react when not necessary.

    This morning......a chance conversation with a policeman...rings in my mind....yet.
    Venting as usual...(me)..he overheard me. There-after followed about an hour of conversation...he took his leave, by the by, with the admonishon.."Keep reloading...keep gathering ammo"..the last sentence from him was..."Its coming..I don't know when..I don't know what will start it...but its coming..."
    Chilling, coming from a 20 year veteran.....Even given the knowlege of history.....chilling.
Sign In or Register to comment.