Much like the second amendment only applies to muskets.
The founding farters couldn't have possibly imagined TV, the radio, or the internet. So the first amendment doesnt apply to them.
Also they owned slavs or something therefore the law is nullified anyway.
Also, it's old. It's literally the current here.
English
#Offtopic
-
[quote]Also they owned slavs or something[/quote] That was the Romans, and the Mongols IIRC. Bloody Genghis.
-
2 RepliesEdited by Relyks: 9/2/2018 8:52:04 AMWell, Thomas Jefferson was an adamant believer in strict interpretation...until he realized it was necessary to obtain the Missouri Compromise. The world would be very different if we adhered to that philosophy, seeing we wouldn't have expanded from the 13 Colonies.
-
1 ReplyNot sure if you ment the typo or not but that’s not a very good argument. The founding father knew the world would change though they probably didn’t know how exactly.
-
I didnt realize the founding "farters" owned slavs? We talking about slavs from europe or asia here?
-
What have you done
-
8 RepliesA straw man argument....and a rather silly one at that.
-
4 RepliesGood lawd ah-mighty boy-o!! Look at this 'ere great load 'o fish ye are after catchin!!! And with shite bait tooo!!
-
1 ReplyLol. I see what you did there. All the comments are saying shit like, "but, but, [i]my rights?![/i]," when this kind of shit is directed at them. You know what? Someone make this a thing! I want this to be the go-to rebuttal for this kind of argument!
-
1 ReplyEdited by ALIAS-F4LS: 8/31/2018 10:54:18 PMFounding farters owning slavs? So Soviet master fart?
-
6 RepliesThe second amendment is different than the first. The first still works today, as free speech and press hasn’t really changed except for the amount. Guns however have bypassed the single shot and then 15 second reload that would have made one man be able to kill dozens an impossible feat with a gun, because after one shot someone could just punch you or run away. A semi auto AR can kill many more people and gives them no chance to run away. If people want them, they can keep them, just not near me.
-
1 ReplyThe constitution also says we have the right to [i]pursue[/i] life, liberty, and happiness - but not to actually [b]be [/b]happy.
-
My Government professor always reminded us one thing about our constitution That it was written by lawyers and written in such a way that you can look at it and take any meaning from it.
-
1 ReplyEcho You make my life harder than it needs to be Can you not do that?
-
1 ReplyOk, just bc you don't like something doesn't mean its meaning changes. The meaning and application of the First Amendment is well settled under U.S. law. Just like facts, the law doesn't change to suit your particular view of things, nor does it change simply bc it's convenient. If we change the meaning/interpretation of settled law, on a whim, then laws and our entire system is undermined. Not only does this go against over 200 years of legal history, but it's also extremely dangerous. Those who attempt this should realize doing this to support your cause/belief means you can't complain in the future when others do this for reasons you may not agree with. Our Constitution, and it's meaning, are sacred and attempting to change them for your own selfish purposes is completely irrational. If you can't achieve your aims within the law as defined, maybe you should rethink your position.
-
2 RepliesYou could imagine that the founders could see advances in arms more than advances in modes of spreading information. The repeating rifle was invented 70 years before radio. Also I would think if you went back in time, explaining the working of the most complex modern firearms would seem more plausible than the fact voices could be transmitted 100s of miles through thin air on invisible waves to a person for the 1800’s.
-
Are you off your meds again?
-
Deal with it
-
2 RepliesYou aren’t being serious, are you? That’s the most anti-American thing I’ve ever heard.
-
7 RepliesFreedom of speech is only good until it triggers a liberal
-
[quote]Much like the second amendment only applies to muskets. The founding farters couldn't have possibly imagined TV, the radio, or the internet. So the first amendment doesnt apply to them. Also they owned slavs or something therefore the law is nullified anyway. Also, it's old. It's literally the current here.[/quote] ... yeah those poor Slavs, always ending up being controlled... [spoiler]not included in the DLC[/spoiler]
-
The great thing about the Founding Fathers is they created a document that as the words on it stay the same and as the country changes it still defines what peoples freedoms are. The Founders knew that scientific discoveries would be made and society would change. Their words are written down in the Federalist Papers that describe what their intentions were in the way they worded it in every piece of it. As for the 1st Amendment. Religion, Free Speech, Assembly, Press, and Redress of Grievances Religion; Since people moved to America to get away from persecution in their homelands, this was purposely made the first of everyone's rights. Today most people believe tjey should have no exposure to it unless they want to. During the Founders time everyone expressed their faith freely and openly, in public areas, now thats not allowed. Speech was covered so everyone could speak freely even if it offended those in power, i.e. government, as it was illegal to speak against the King of England. Political speech is what the first amendment applied to. Later it was expanded to include all types of speech, even those types that people dont want to hear. Assembly was so those being against the King could form a group to oppose the government at anytime people are unhappy with what the Government does. This applies even to todays standards as people can make others in the country aware of anything any group wants. Press should be free and unbiased. Free to criticize the Government but at the sametime unbiased as to give more information so people can make an informed decision. Todays media is the press as it uses most major newspapers for its stoeies and lets people know the major news of today. Redress of Grievances is so when the Government does something that violates the peoples rights they can petition the Government for a redress without fear or reprisals or punishment. Slavery and the Japanese inturn are but a few of these types of redresses. 2nd Amendment During the Founders time muskets were of common use but by 1860 the first Gatling gun was created, a machine gun, but it required the use of 2 people. 1 person turned a crank while the other pointed it. So even at the time of the Founding guns were becoming more lethal in their use. As for cannons, During the Revolutionary war some were owned by private citizens the rest came from countries that were not friendly to England. As the war raged on, we learned how to make them, iron ore which is the base item, was plentiful and still is in America, was used to make them. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution gives everyone the very basic rights that are inherit to every citizen of the United States. There are more in the Declaration of Independence, Life, Liberty, and Property (pursuit of happiness). Benjamin Franklin once said that he and the framers gave us " a Republic, if you can keep it", if they werent looking to the future, then why add if u can keep it? Because every word in the Constitution was designed to stay with us as long as we wanted it to. Sadly today, I believe we are in a Post-constitutional era. We give lip service to it but we dont read, teach, or know what it says or means anymore. I guess we decided not to keep it?
-
[quote]Also they owned slavs[/quote] *squatting intensifies*
-
Edited by Dr Livingston 9: 8/31/2018 1:32:15 AMI see your sarcasm here and some say the founding fathers would still say private internet companies should be able to ban people but I question that if they are not breaking the law or threating or harassing. then again these interent companies have STRONG ties to the government which receive money from the government. there is proof that the united states government instructs facebook to ban certain topics or protesters. I remember reading about Saudi arabia protestors from Saudi arabia are collectively banned or silenced on facebook which is the new public square. the question is will the free market take care of these pieces of shit like Zuckerberg ? or do they have so much power and times have changed and there are exceptions to the rule with private companies when they can silence whole political parties or protestors. this is very interesting indeed and I would love to go back in time and send the founding fathers in a time machine to our time. after a couple of months they would make a decision. what would george washington say or thomas jefferson or ben franklin? the gun issue is not a issue citizens need guns especailly if there is a coming civil war. its not only the goverment we have to worry about but other citizens.
-
Bump for Founding Farters.
-
1 ReplyI normally don't respond to your posts, but I couldn't pass this up. [quote]founding farters[/quote]