Jump to content



Photo

Judge & Town Council attack Second Amendment


  • Please log in to reply
318 replies to this topic

#41 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 09:31 AM

By the way, rights can not be taken or given away. They can be violated, ignored, upheld or secured, but they cannot be taken. They are inalienable. What can be taken is the freedom to exercise those rights. Even a prisoner has a right to defend himself, but we, as a society, have decided to take away his freedom to exercise that right.

#42 grayarea

grayarea

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 835 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 10:09 AM

I have always found the 2nd amendment the best reason to consider the Bill of Rights to be a flexible government. Whatever modern weapon you might carry today were never contemplated at the time the framers put together the Bill of Rights. I'm one of those guys that thinks it should be open to interpretation based upon the time the questions that broach said amendment are asked.

 

It's not that I am against the second amendment, but some things I see folks trying to defend under are beyond reason.



#43 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 12:19 PM

I believe that the framers intent was that the citizens have the right to the same arms that their government has.
  • James-R-McClure-Jr and littletommy like this

#44 James-R-McClure-Jr

James-R-McClure-Jr

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 12:36 PM

Peace, grayarea,

 

I have always found the 2nd amendment the best reason to consider the Bill of Rights to be a flexible government. Whatever modern weapon you might carry today were never contemplated at the time the framers put together the Bill of Rights. I'm one of those guys that thinks it should be open to interpretation based upon the time the questions that broach said amendment are asked.

 

It's not that I am against the second amendment, but some things I see folks trying to defend under are beyond reason.

 

The Bill of Rights was designed to restrain and limit the federal government not enable or empower it.  Do you know that automatic weapons existed during the Revolutionary War period?  The Founders and Framers were fully aware of such weapons.  Do you believe your Right a speedy trial or a lawyer or to be secure in your person, house, and papers is open to interpretation based on the time the question is asked?

 

Defending Myself and My country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is beyond reason?



#45 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,720 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 12:48 PM

. I'm one of those guys that thinks it should be open to interpretation

Same as freedom of speech?

 

Should we have to have a background check done, have mandatory training, and purchase a license before we can state our opinion in public?


Edited by woo, 20 March 2015 - 12:48 PM.

  • littletommy likes this

#46 littletommy

littletommy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 01:15 PM

Fortunately for those of who believe in the right to carry, more and more states are easing restrictions on who, what when, and where we can carry. The scare tactics by the anti crowd have been proven wrong/inaccurate to out right lies, and nationwide, more people have become gun owners as a result of the childish fear mongering by the antis, which translates into more people carrying. The antis themselves have let the genie out of the bottle. I say let Guilfoil propose whatever he wants, let the council vote on it, and then the people that matter can sort it all out at election time.



#47 JeffResident

JeffResident

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 03:05 PM

Actually, asking others to give up their rights so that you may be happy is pretty childish.
It's this type of attitude that infringes on others freedom and pursuit of happiness.


Not really. Your insistence on carrying a gun in the grocery store, the supermarket, the movie theatre, my kid's school ... thus making ME and my family uncomfortable because you think God says it's okay and reasonable infringes on my pursuit of happiness.

But I like the Amendments too. Like the first one, which gives me the right to call the gun culture and worship of guns ridiculous and stupid.

#48 Dee Shelton Jr

Dee Shelton Jr

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 03:55 PM

I sincerely hope that ordinance isn't passed, I wouldn't vote for it. Put that on the record....
  • kelley, littletommy and Dulcimore Dan like this

#49 littletommy

littletommy

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 03:59 PM

I'm uncomfortable every time I go in WalMart, which is not very often. I keep my disgust to myself, and don't run around spouting off about how things that make me uncomfortable should be banned. It's funny that an object would make you uncomfortable though, I mean, I rarely ever see anyone open carrying, but apparently it's rampant where you live. Or do you just assume that lots of people are carrying guns and get uncomfortable thinking about it? I'm being serious, I really can't understand feeling uncomfortable because you see someone shopping who happens to be carrying a firearm. Are they going to do their weekly shopping first and then shoot a few  innocents on the way out?

 

Very interesting..........


  • JHS1982 likes this

#50 James-R-McClure-Jr

James-R-McClure-Jr

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 04:32 PM

Peace, JeffResident,

 

Not really. Your insistence on carrying a gun in the grocery store, the supermarket, the movie theatre, my kid's school ... thus making ME and my family uncomfortable because you think God says it's okay and reasonable infringes on my pursuit of happiness.

But I like the Amendments too. Like the first one, which gives me the right to call the gun culture and worship of guns ridiculous and stupid.

 

You don't have a Right not to be uncomfortable or not to be offended.  I'm not sure how you can be made uncomfortable by concealed carry handguns.  You can't see them.  They are concealed.  Are you uncomfortable when others drive cars in your view, since automobiles kill many more people per year than firearms do?  If you are uncomfortable at the very thought that everyone around you may be armed or dangerous, perhaps your problem isn't with the Second Amendment .... 

 

Second Amendment supporters don't worship firearms.  We recognize they are inanimate tools and necessary to secure our Liberty.


Edited by James-R-McClure-Jr, 20 March 2015 - 04:36 PM.

  • littletommy and Russell Brooksbank like this

#51 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 04:51 PM

The constitution is subject to change.  It is subject to  interpretation. 



#52 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 06:00 PM

The constitution is subject to change. It's called the amendment process. However, the second amendment was written in plain English and there is no interpretation needed.

#53 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 06:03 PM

Dee, I would join with you in voting against this ordinance. If it passes and we end up on Town Council together I would join you in repealing it.

#54 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 06:11 PM

Great question. No takers?


I answered. I said that tanks should definitely not be allowed in the courtroom.

#55 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 07:23 PM

I say the constitution is subject to interpretation because it has been interpreted.  It is a fact that this happens. 

 

You may hold the opinion that it doesn't need interpretation. You may even have the opinion that

it  'isn't subject to interpretation.'    In the the first instance you would merely be expressing an opinion.

In the second, you would be factually wrong. 



#56 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 07:27 PM

Pesky, well at that point we are moving into an area where a person is basically in the courts custody, per se, and the courts would have authority, to limit the exercise of certain rights. As a defendant the Judge has authority to violate your freedom of movement by instructing the bailiff to make sure you don't leave. It would be the same authority that police would have to secure your weapon when they take you into custody. If and when you are found innocent then your weapon should be returned to yo

 

 

No.  Defendants many times are out of jail on bail.  In those cases,  where the defendant is not in custody,  why would she or he have their 2nd Amendment right infringed upon?   Or should the right to bear arms be at least limited or infringed upon in this instance?



#57 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 08:03 PM

Yes, they could be out on bail, but once they submit themselves to the court then they are in the courts custody. How many defendants are free to get up and leave while they are being tried?

#58 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 08:07 PM

The fact that people have tried to make the Constitution say things that it does not say isn't proof that it is open to interpretation.
  • James-R-McClure-Jr likes this

#59 Diogenes

Diogenes

    BANNED

  • Account Closed
  • Pip
  • 49 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 08:15 PM

Not really. Your insistence on carrying a gun in the grocery store, the supermarket, the movie theatre, my kid's school ... thus making ME and my family uncomfortable because you think God says it's okay and reasonable infringes on my pursuit of happiness.

But I like the Amendments too. Like the first one, which gives me the right to call the gun culture and worship of guns ridiculous and stupid.

1st of all I call you out for BS to which you're spewwing, you know very good and well that firearm's are prohibited on school property outside of one's private secured vehicle, not the halls or campus here in Indiana, your claim is extreme and plain wrong, and you best remember this you would not have your 1st Amendment without the 2nd Admendment to defend it and no the 1st Amendment does not give you the right to classify, identify or discrimnate against anyone or a group of individuals as "stupid", since your uncomfortable about names shouldn't this make you duly uncomfortable... oh wait,  you're one of those that claim that such things don't apply to you but everyone should protect you and yours of your feelings being hurt....you and Anita Dunn must be fellow supporters of Mao Zedong and how power should be obtained.......



#60 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,098 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 08:52 PM

1st of all I call you out for BS to which you're spewwing, you know very good and well that firearm's are prohibited on school property outside of one's private secured vehicle, not the halls or campus here in Indiana, your claim is extreme and plain wrong, and you best remember this you would not have your 1st Amendment without the 2nd Admendment to defend it and no the 1st Amendment does not give you the right to classify, identify or discrimnate against anyone or a group of individuals as "stupid", since your uncomfortable about names shouldn't this make you duly uncomfortable... oh wait, you're one of those that claim that such things don't apply to you but everyone should protect you and yours of your feelings being hurt....you and Anita Dunn must be fellow supporters of Mao Zedong and how power should be obtained.......



"no the 1st Amendment does not give you the right to classify, identify or discrimnate against anyone or a group of individuals as "stupid","


Sure it does.

It's not especially classy, but it's protected speech.
  • Russell Brooksbank likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users