Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 21:53:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
735 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 1999 19:06:47 GMT, "Christopher L. Weeks"
<c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote:
> Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > All amendments have limitations. Why should the second amendment be different?
>
> Constitutional amendments shouldn't have any limitations that aren't
> built into the verbiage of the amendment. What are the limitations on
> the third? The fourth? The sixth? Or the seventh, the eighth, the
> ninth, tenth, eleventh, etc.?
I have been following along with all you guys arguing over this subject (sorry,
"debating"). Interesting points from all sides, but of course ultimately it
is fruitless - neither side will convince the other to significantly change
their position.
I thought I would just chime it about the limits on amendments. Of course
there are limits. I don't know them all, but a couple are very well known:
Freedom of speech - this is not absolute. Try yelling "Fire!" in a packed
theatre just for fun. This would be especially hazardous during the premiere
of SW-TPM. :-)
Check in at an airline counter and casually mention that you have a bomb.
What!? What do you mean I can't say what I want, when I want?
So there is a *limit* on free speech.
Right to keep and bear arms: If you are a felon, you just lost that right.
If you read throught the amendments, and think about it a little, it soon
becomes obvious that there are many limitations on them. Is it right to have
these limits? Depends on your perspective. Most would agree with them.
-- Terry K --
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Wouldn't matter then. No one would be able to hear you over the THX sound system. ;) (...) Preserving some rights means restricting other rights. Right? Steve (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Why does it matter? The first half of it is merely a justification for the second which is direction on what rights are granted to (actually affirmed for) whom. (...) No. (...) That's right, they didn't want to limit it to any particular kind (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
