@nd ammendment trampled?

[therealsylvos]

I need an explanation please help me.
How come whenever the police would throw protester's off someones private propety they are going against the fist ammendment but there are laws and more laws wich are so counter intuitive its unbleivable that it openly violates the second ammendment and not just the "Living constitution" I mean the first ammendment is important but it is nothing compared to what is hands down the most important ammenmant the second.... explanation plz

[Jose]

Can I have that in English so I can respond?

[Maus]

...

What? Do you even know what the amendments ARE?

[Jimsween]

Is that after the ampersand amendment or before the asterisk amendment?

[therealsylvos]

At 9/20/05 11:13 PM, Jimsween wrote: Is that after the ampersand amendment or before the asterisk amendment?

ur right im sorry i tried to correct it but they said i was double posting so....
and yes the first ammendment is the freedom of speach the freedom of religion the freedom of assembly and the freedom of the press the second is the right to bear arms if it werent for that ammendment we'd be in major shit

[Gunter45]

At 9/20/05 11:13 PM, Jimsween wrote: Is that after the ampersand amendment or before the asterisk amendment?

Dude, it's right after the exclamation point amendment, look at your keyboard dumbass.

[Nomader]

Anyways... I'll do my best to attempt to answer your question... correct me if I'm wrong here.

The @nd Ammendment was trampled today after a heated debate, where it was decided that it contradicted the %ent ammendment and the !nd ammendment. It was decided that also, the major problem in it, was the use of the word $%#!

Seriously, isn't there some amendment which allows people the right to privacy and such - it states "All rights not specifically stated in this Constitution are granted to the Citizens" or something like that?

[Jimsween]

At 9/20/05 11:17 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Dude, it's right after the exclamation point amendment, look at your keyboard dumbass.

Psh, go back to middle school. They didn't have keyboards back then, they operated through a system of slide whistles.

[TheShrike]

At 9/20/05 11:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I need an explanation please help me.
How come whenever the police would throw protester's off someones private propety

Protest about your mangled english, tomorrow, on your lawn.

WHO'S COMING WITH ME?

[Nomader]

At 9/20/05 11:29 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 9/20/05 11:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I need an explanation please help me.
How come whenever the police would throw protester's off someones private propety

Protest about your mangled english, tomorrow, on your lawn.

WHO'S COMING WITH ME?

Where? Wha? I don't think you used English...

[therealsylvos]

At 9/20/05 11:29 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 9/20/05 11:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I need an explanation please help me.
How come whenever the police would throw protester's off someones private propety

Protest about your mangled english, tomorrow, on your lawn.

WHO'S COMING WITH ME?

yes ok i dont type very well amazing can we get on with our lives? the fact still remains that the first ammendment is untouchable while the 2nd is tottally ignored

[fahrenheit]

At 9/20/05 11:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote: yes ok i dont type very well amazing can we get on with our lives? the fact still remains that the first ammendment is untouchable while the 2nd is tottally ignored

The second amendmant is the right to bear arms if I am not mistaken.
They originally made that amendment back when Britian was still in rule and America did not have much of an army. So in fear of being invaded they allowed citizens to carry weapons to defend themselves if the british ever came back, now that may have applyed back then but now it does not serve much of a purpose.

A lot of things they established in those days dont apply to modern times but still remain in effect.

[madzakk]

At 9/20/05 11:00 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I need an explanation please help me.
How come whenever the police would throw protester's off someones private propety

That's called trespassing. You have the right to speak your mind, not to trespass on someone else's property.

I mean the first ammendment is important but it is nothing compared to what is hands down the most important ammenmant the second.... explanation plz

Because if you try to take away my 1st amendment rights, the 2nd amendment comes into play. In other words, infringe on my rights at the risk of losing your life!

[Jimsween]

At 9/20/05 11:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote: yes ok i dont type very well amazing can we get on with our lives? the fact still remains that the first ammendment is untouchable while the 2nd is tottally ignored

Mainly because the intention of the first amendment isn't stated, while the intention of the second is stated.

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 inclusion 'a well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state' can be argued to mean that the only purpose for not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is for the well regulated militia, and since we have a well regulated militia, there is no need for that.

I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is a perfectly legitimate argument.

[Memorize]

Guns are fun. I swear if you come onto my property to take it away then i'll shoot your ass.

[madzakk]

At 9/20/05 11:51 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Guns are fun. I swear if you come onto my property to take it away then i'll shoot your ass.

DITTO TO ALL OF THE ABOVE!

[fahrenheit]

At 9/21/05 12:00 AM, mofomojo wrote: Although getting rid of guns is unneccesary, do you really need a "well-maintained militia"

The whole purpose of a militia is if the army falls we can still defend ourselves.
And I think our army falling is a bit unlikely.

[JoS]

Your rights end when they interfer with someone elses rights.

[madzakk]

At 9/21/05 12:08 AM, Velocitom wrote:

The whole purpose of a militia is if the army falls we can still defend ourselves.
And I think our army falling is a bit unlikely.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Thomas Jefferson

[fahrenheit]

At 9/21/05 12:43 AM, madzakk wrote: "The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Thomas Jefferson

Thats one of the reasons, but not the main one.

[jmaster306]

At 9/20/05 11:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote: the fact still remains that the first ammendment is untouchable while the 2nd is tottally ignored

Examples please? I mean, we have no idea what the fuck it is you are talking about. You could be bitching about a variety fo restrictions or just have a select one or two in mind. Is it so much to ask that when a person creates a topic that they actually form a coherent argument?

[Camarohusky]

Maybe the 1st amendment holds more water because the 1st amendment isn't one idiot's finger away from murder...

[Demosthenez]

At 9/21/05 12:43 AM, madzakk wrote: "The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" Thomas Jefferson

Lol, you try overthrowing the goverment with rifles and shotguns when the military has tanks and copters and planes and M16's.

Lol, the thought tickles me.

[madzakk]

At 9/21/05 03:03 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:
Lol, you try overthrowing the goverment with rifles and shotguns when the military has tanks and copters and planes and M16's.

Lol, the thought tickles me.

They didn't have much more than that in Vietnam and they won.

[JoS]

So technically the Black Panthers were mroe within their rights to have their guns than basically anyone else in the US at the time? Im pretty sure they were aboutt he only ones armed to protect themselves from a tyranical government.

[madzakk]

At 9/21/05 11:06 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: So technically the Black Panthers were mroe within their rights to have their guns than basically anyone else in the US at the time? Im pretty sure they were aboutt he only ones armed to protect themselves from a tyranical government.

Their is also the unorganized tyranny of many (Criminals). Guns, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, tend to scare that element.

[JoS]

But criminals arent the government. Well they are but we call them politicians, not criminals.

Zing.

[Gunter45]

At 9/21/05 11:20 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: But criminals arent the government. Well they are but we call them politicians, not criminals.

Zing.

Ouch, that wasn't bad.

Back on track, I've always felt that the 2nd Amendment was something of a Catch-22. If the government is good, you don't need guns to overthrow them, but if it's bad, then who gives a damn about the 2nd Amendment, they're going to take your guns anyway.

[madzakk]

At 9/21/05 11:20 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: But criminals arent the government. Well they are but we call them politicians, not criminals.

Tyrannical governments or criminals; dead ones don't bother anyone anymore.

[MortifiedPenguins]

you people realize that a militia is now your national guard right.