A First Amendment re-write

[SFLiberal]

"A well regulated library, being necessary for the security of an intelligent society, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

So if the 1st amendment was written like that would liberals argue that only libraries be allowed to own and possess books? Just a thought.

[bbqboy]

You are incredible. A douchbag, a dildo, and a constitutional expert all rolled into one slimy package. Congratulations.

[tvguy]

"A well regulated library, being necessary for the security of an intelligent society, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

So if the 1st amendment was written like that would liberals argue that only libraries be allowed to own and possess books? Just a thought.

Good point. It's a mystery to me how anyone can interpret the second amendment and anything other than a right to keep and bear arms.

[tvguy]

You are incredible. A douchbag, a dildo, and a constitutional expert all rolled into one slimy package. Congratulations.

Wow what a POS troll. His post made total sense. You? You need to get a life.

[solomon]

Some people get the corruption they vote for. It dont take long fer the paranoia to set in.

Here is a progressive, green idea: get rid of All the guns, police and military, the works. Blast them off the planet in a rocket headed for the sun. No more GHG emissions from manufacture and discharge. Then we can kill with clean green machetes.

[Wonky3]

Some people get the corruption they vote for. It dont take long fer the paranoia to set in.

Here is a progressive, green idea: get rid of All the guns, police and military, the works. Blast them off the planet in a rocket headed for the sun. No more GHG emissions from manufacture and discharge. Then we can kill with clean green machetes.

No thanks! If I meet some scary man dude in a dark alley I'd rather he shot me in the face than hack at my neck for five or ten minutes util he finds a vital spot.

About TVG's post above. Constitutional scholars have been arguing for a hundred years about the true intent of the 2nd amendment. Recently, SCOTUS ruled that it is an almost literally interruption, but the court has gone "back and forth" on this over the years and we can be sure it will someday come up again.

What most agree, is that the thing was written in haste and not worded well. Language professors claim the real problem is the placement of a comma, but that's way beyond me.

Like sin, I think this will always be with us. Like salvation, it it hard to correct.

[tvguy]

Some people get the corruption they vote for. It dont take long fer the paranoia to set in.

Here is a progressive, green idea: get rid of All the guns, police and military, the works. Blast them off the planet in a rocket headed for the sun. No more GHG emissions from manufacture and discharge. Then we can kill with clean green machetes.

Yes that's a progressive green idea. It's also totally unrealistic

But what does voting for corruption have to do with this thread?

[solomon]

Well, this thread seems politically motivated, and I suggest that voting R and D is rubber stamping the current corrupt system either by hook or crook, in which case, sorry dupes but the crooks have this on lock and they work both sides. Naturally they get a little paranoid if they feel their dirty laundry is about overflow the closet. Uh, militarized police anyone?

[Wonky3]

Well, this thread seems politically motivated, and I suggest that voting R and D is rubber stamping the current corrupt system either by hook or crook, in which case, sorry dupes but the crooks have this on lock and they work both sides. Naturally they get a little paranoid if they feel their dirty laundry is about overflow the closet. Uh, militarized police anyone?

Where you you buy your cynic buttons?
There is a lot wrong with our county and the institutions that effect our lives.

There is also a lot right with the foundations that we have build this society on and to it's far too soon to give up on our country,

Try to be part of the solution.

[SFLiberal]

Well, this thread seems politically motivated, and I suggest that voting R and D is rubber stamping the current corrupt system either by hook or crook, in which case, sorry dupes but the crooks have this on lock and they work both sides. Naturally they get a little paranoid if they feel their dirty laundry is about overflow the closet. Uh, militarized police anyone?

Where you you buy your cynic buttons?
There is a lot wrong with our county and the institutions that effect our lives.

There is also a lot right with the foundations that we have build this society on and to it's far too soon to give up on our country,

Try to be part of the solution.

It's hard not to be a cynic when you see headlines like this one from today:

NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver accused of $6 million bribery and kickback scheme, taken into custody
Silver, who has been one of the most powerful lawmakers in Albany for more than two decades, surrendered to authorities Thursday morning. A five-count federal complaint accuses him of accepting millions from firms seeking him to wield influence in Albany on their behalf.
BY Kenneth Lovett , John Marzulli , Greg B. Smith
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Thursday, January 22, 2015, 1:55 AM

ALBANY — Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the longtime Albany power broker, surrendered Thursday to face multimillion dollar federal corruption charges, the Daily News has learned.

A stunning five-count criminal complaint accused the Manhattan Democrat, a state political fixture for decades, with pocketing more than $6 million in bribes and kickbacks in return for wielding his massive influence.

Silver stands accused of pressuring real estate companies doing business with the state to hire two law firms that were regularly paying him bribes, the 35-page complaint charged.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...-1.2087758

[tvguy]

Some people get the corruption they vote for. It dont take long fer the paranoia to set in.

Here is a progressive, green idea: get rid of All the guns, police and military, the works. Blast them off the planet in a rocket headed for the sun. No more GHG emissions from manufacture and discharge. Then we can kill with clean green machetes.

No thanks! If I meet some scary man dude in a dark alley I'd rather he shot me in the face than hack at my neck for five or ten minutes util he finds a vital spot.

About TVG's post above. Constitutional scholars have been arguing for a hundred years about the true intent of the 2nd amendment. Recently, SCOTUS ruled that it is an almost literally interruption, but the court has gone "back and forth" on this over the years and we can be sure it will someday come up again.

What most agree, is that the thing was written in haste and not worded well. Language professors claim the real problem is the placement of a comma, but that's way beyond me.

Like sin, I think this will always be with us. Like salvation, it it hard to correct.

IMO The second amendment is clear enough. A coma? Whatever. The court has gone back and forth?

Really? No one has ever lost their right to bear arms so I don't know how much back and forth the courts have gone.

[Wonky3]

Some people get the corruption they vote for. It dont take long fer the paranoia to set in.

Here is a progressive, green idea: get rid of All the guns, police and military, the works. Blast them off the planet in a rocket headed for the sun. No more GHG emissions from manufacture and discharge. Then we can kill with clean green machetes.

No thanks! If I meet some scary man dude in a dark alley I'd rather he shot me in the face than hack at my neck for five or ten minutes util he finds a vital spot.

About TVG's post above. Constitutional scholars have been arguing for a hundred years about the true intent of the 2nd amendment. Recently, SCOTUS ruled that it is an almost literally interruption, but the court has gone "back and forth" on this over the years and we can be sure it will someday come up again.

What most agree, is that the thing was written in haste and not worded well. Language professors claim the real problem is the placement of a comma, but that's way beyond me.

Like sin, I think this will always be with us. Like salvation, it it hard to correct.

IMO The second amendment is clear enough. A coma? Whatever. The court has gone back and forth?

Really? No one has ever lost their right to bear arms so I don't know how much back and forth the courts have gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen...nstitution

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.[15]

[tvguy]

Some people get the corruption they vote for. It dont take long fer the paranoia to set in.

Here is a progressive, green idea: get rid of All the guns, police and military, the works. Blast them off the planet in a rocket headed for the sun. No more GHG emissions from manufacture and discharge. Then we can kill with clean green machetes.

No thanks! If I meet some scary man dude in a dark alley I'd rather he shot me in the face than hack at my neck for five or ten minutes util he finds a vital spot.

About TVG's post above. Constitutional scholars have been arguing for a hundred years about the true intent of the 2nd amendment. Recently, SCOTUS ruled that it is an almost literally interruption, but the court has gone "back and forth" on this over the years and we can be sure it will someday come up again.

What most agree, is that the thing was written in haste and not worded well. Language professors claim the real problem is the placement of a comma, but that's way beyond me.

Like sin, I think this will always be with us. Like salvation, it it hard to correct.

IMO The second amendment is clear enough. A coma? Whatever. The court has gone back and forth?

Really? No one has ever lost their right to bear arms so I don't know how much back and forth the courts have gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen...nstitution

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.[15]

I think I said what I was thinking wrong. Yes it's debated a lot but as far as the courts it haven't gone back and forth in as far as the second amendment .. Our right to bear arms.... has always been intact.

[Wonky3]

Some people get the corruption they vote for. It dont take long fer the paranoia to set in.

Here is a progressive, green idea: get rid of All the guns, police and military, the works. Blast them off the planet in a rocket headed for the sun. No more GHG emissions from manufacture and discharge. Then we can kill with clean green machetes.

No thanks! If I meet some scary man dude in a dark alley I'd rather he shot me in the face than hack at my neck for five or ten minutes util he finds a vital spot.

About TVG's post above. Constitutional scholars have been arguing for a hundred years about the true intent of the 2nd amendment. Recently, SCOTUS ruled that it is an almost literally interruption, but the court has gone "back and forth" on this over the years and we can be sure it will someday come up again.

What most agree, is that the thing was written in haste and not worded well. Language professors claim the real problem is the placement of a comma, but that's way beyond me.

Like sin, I think this will always be with us. Like salvation, it it hard to correct.

IMO The second amendment is clear enough. A coma? Whatever. The court has gone back and forth?

Really? No one has ever lost their right to bear arms so I don't know how much back and forth the courts have gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen...nstitution

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.[15]

I think I said what I was thinking wrong. Yes it's debated a lot but as far as the courts it haven't gone back and forth in as far as the second amendment .. Our right to bear arms.... has always been intact.

True, that.
And, to keep this circle going I say (again) that the debates about the amendment has been ongoing for a hundred years. It was NOT a well written piece of work, but in the end it don't matter a lick...we have now, and always have had, the right to bear arms.
(In a well regulated militia.... couldn't help myself.