General Discussion

treestar

(82,383 posts)

114. They don't have to be interpreted the same

Thu Jun 16, 2016, 03:26 PM

Jun 2016

The courts have to follow case law. Each amendment has its own body thereof.

The First Allows Trump's inflammatory rhetoric. Unless he is actively a conspirator, it all falls on the shooter.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When the second amendment was penned, people owned flintlocks. [View all] Avalux Jun 2016 OP

Which were more advanced weapons jtx Jun 2016 #1

Check yer facts. rogerashton Jun 2016 #3

Did you read the link you posted? jtx Jun 2016 #4

Girandoni air rifle Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #13

?? jtx Jun 2016 #15

It's a bullshit toy that gunners reference as a semi-auto in 1789 jberryhill Jun 2016 #32

A "toy" that Tyrollean sharpshooters in the Austrian army claimed were accurate... Marengo Jun 2016 #44

1500 pumps for 30 shots jberryhill Jun 2016 #64

Did you use the weapon in combat? Doubt it, so how is your opinion worth more... Marengo Jun 2016 #68

It's not a firearm, and you've never spoken to anyone who used one jberryhill Jun 2016 #71

Provide a link where I claimed it was a firearm, and I happen to own a "big bore" air rifle Marengo Jun 2016 #73

I'll ask again, how is my personal travel history relevant to this discussion? Marengo Jun 2016 #74

The air reservoirs are detachable, and the intention was for the soldier to carry several... Marengo Jun 2016 #88

Oh god not that canard again jberryhill Jun 2016 #29

A 50 caliber bullet traveling as fast as a modern 45ACP? I don't think you're quite right. n/t X_Digger Jun 2016 #47

Yeah a pump gun can be dangerous jberryhill Jun 2016 #63

Displaying more ignorance on the subject. It's a pre-charged pneumatic design... Marengo Jun 2016 #84

750 psi. Are you even aware how much pressure that is? A .500 caliber slug traveling at 700fps. X_Digger Jun 2016 #89

Now, where did he run off too? Marengo Jun 2016 #117

Oh yeah, 150-200 ft lbs of muzzle energy is a real joke. Marengo Jun 2016 #50

Bullshit jberryhill Jun 2016 #62

You are displaying ignorance on this subject. The firing of extent specimens... Marengo Jun 2016 #75

There was the puckle gun. beevul Jun 2016 #129

That's why I have several hundred MIRVs ready to launch in my back yard. onehandle Jun 2016 #8

"something so fundamental that it was written into the Bill of Rights" UtahJosh Jun 2016 #19

Do you know how the founder became the founders? pipoman Jun 2016 #22

By being privileged rich white men? jberryhill Jun 2016 #34

Which would have spared them the gallows had they lost? Marengo Jun 2016 #45

Wow, thanks for the hint! UtahJosh Jun 2016 #57

You're welcome...you obviously hadn't bothered to actually read... pipoman Jun 2016 #67

Yes, you're really on to me! UtahJosh Jun 2016 #70

well-regulated militia for defense against whom? 6chars Jun 2016 #51

Guns are useful to slave owners too. hunter Jun 2016 #111

is there any historical evidence this was guiding the framers? 6chars Jun 2016 #122

They were worried about Indians, Spanish, British, Slave insurrections, rebellions, riots, smugglers jmg257 Jun 2016 #136

Excellent post! 6chars Jun 2016 #137

Coming 12 years after the French and Indian Wars One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #127

What the fuck does this have to do with guns that can slaughter human beings with aplomb? Dem2 Jun 2016 #20

The OP is pretending that muzzle loaders have something to do with anything... pipoman Jun 2016 #23

The founders never imagined that such weapons would be commonly available Dem2 Jun 2016 #25

Unless you commune with the dead, it means nothing. Marengo Jun 2016 #31

They fully and completely intended for civilian ownership of pipoman Jun 2016 #33

Yes, after lone wolf attacks on nightclubs, the British gave up jberryhill Jun 2016 #35

The British had provisions for "putting down insurrections" too....they were unsuccessful... pipoman Jun 2016 #39

...and no democratic process for changing their government jberryhill Jun 2016 #40

Read. pipoman Jun 2016 #41

What was the commonly accepted 18th century definition of a "free state"? Marengo Jun 2016 #46

That's kind of hogwash Dem2 Jun 2016 #80

You don't get to make shit up and peddle it as truth. pipoman Jun 2016 #83

There's 102 pages you'll never read full of facts that you'll never know Dem2 Jun 2016 #85

There was definitely the Southern States concern. As the Virginia debates clearly show. jmg257 Jun 2016 #93

Even then the militias were a bunch of lazy drunks more likely to shoot each other vs. a perceived Dem2 Jun 2016 #95

As Bogus describes - often ineffective - which is why improving their situation was "necessary". jmg257 Jun 2016 #96

I think we can come up with compromises as I suggested in my post Dem2 Jun 2016 #100

So why did those slave-appeasing states like Vermont and Pennsylvania enshrine the same protection X_Digger Jun 2016 #98

How is that relevant to the article or points about the Constitutional Convention and the South? Dem2 Jun 2016 #99

Bogus's paper presupposes his own conclusion-- that the 2nd was an appeasement. X_Digger Jun 2016 #101

Speaking of self-serving bullshit Dem2 Jun 2016 #102

I kick the leg out of Bogus' twaddle, with one simple post, and that's 'self-serving'?? X_Digger Jun 2016 #106

I'm sure you believe that shit too Dem2 Jun 2016 #108

Aww, now I know I've struck a nerve; you resorted to insults. n/t X_Digger Jun 2016 #109

How is your revolver not an artificial penis? Marengo Jun 2016 #116

Washing hogs. Straw Man Jun 2016 #125

Bye Dem2 Jun 2016 #131

Bye. Straw Man Jun 2016 #132

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service eggplant Jun 2016 #133

This ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #134

No they did it with Military Arms and a Trained Army One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #128

The hell they didn't. beevul Jun 2016 #130

Nothing jberryhill Jun 2016 #97

Mass-murder means nothing when one is concerned about features that didn't even exist Dem2 Jun 2016 #104

Talking sensibly? jberryhill Jun 2016 #105

I did similar with a nail, paper cone, a tube and an air fitting stuffed into end of said tube Dem2 Jun 2016 #110

Still claiming a Daisy BB rifle is more effective? Still claiming you know more than those... Marengo Jun 2016 #121

Your revolver didn't exist then, either. Marengo Jun 2016 #120

20 seconds for a highly trained infantryman mwrguy Jun 2016 #2

one of my favorite reads KittyWampus Jun 2016 #12

Every time I saw Ned Stark or Boromir I always thought Recursion Jun 2016 #113

Let's not forget jaysunb Jun 2016 #5

What do you think that clause means? jtx Jun 2016 #14

The purpose of the 2A didn't have anything to do with reloading times. ileus Jun 2016 #6

When the First Amendment was penned TeddyR Jun 2016 #7

+1 Just reading posts Jun 2016 #9

The first amendment (like our other enumerated rights) is not absolute etherealtruth Jun 2016 #11

There isn't an amendment with more limitations than the second... pipoman Jun 2016 #27

I would beg to differ, i see the first amendment as having far more .... etherealtruth Jun 2016 #56

And what do you know of gun laws? Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #58

I am at work, I can cite you just as many limitations and laws related to the first amendement etherealtruth Jun 2016 #61

I think the point os that there is a volume of limitations on the 2nd pipoman Jun 2016 #65

I never denied the limitations , simply pointed out that I don't beleive it is the most limited etherealtruth Jun 2016 #69

The courts have drawn a pretty distinct line pipoman Jun 2016 #82

Your claim was that the First Amendment is far more limited than the Second Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #72

you responded to the wrong post.. pipoman Jun 2016 #76

Interesting list PJMcK Jun 2016 #79

Oops, them damn facts again Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #37

Totally different issues involved treestar Jun 2016 #91

According to some posters on DU TeddyR Jun 2016 #103

They don't have to be interpreted the same treestar Jun 2016 #114

The IMT didn't hold that view in Nuremberg, and Julius Streicher hung Marengo Jun 2016 #118

I like that it's harder for people to vote or get a driver's license than buying a gun tenderfoot Jun 2016 #10

Is it really? Abq_Sarah Jun 2016 #48

Then move to Florida tenderfoot Jun 2016 #53

Gee, I looked at the Florida statutes Abq_Sarah Jun 2016 #112

I've done both in the last month Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #59

Not in Florida tenderfoot Jun 2016 #92

So I don't have to fill out a form 4473 and show ID when I get a gun from a dealer in Florida? Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #94

Do tell. Straw Man Jun 2016 #126

Funny how the RIGHT always back off original intent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, JCMach1 Jun 2016 #16

Correct GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #17

No you couldn't own a cannon. UtahJosh Jun 2016 #86

Posted from your printing press, no doubt. linuxman Jun 2016 #18

And when the 1st Amendment was penned, I believe it was with quill and ink. Waldorf Jun 2016 #21

Yeah, that's why this is a losing argument for gun control. -nt- Lord Magus Jun 2016 #26

but your right to free expression will still be protected ! Angel Martin Jun 2016 #55

The 2nd was penned because the people had the right, along with the duty, to serve in the militias. jmg257 Jun 2016 #24

Yep, the 2nd was written under the thinking that standing armies would always be a tool of tyranny. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #28

Yep , the people decided they are both sort of obsolete, jmg257 Jun 2016 #38

They had an agrarian society then. We now sell WAR, ARMS, and HEROIN. nt valerief Jun 2016 #30

The Second Amendment Doesn't Specify WHAT Kind of Arms We Can Own Night Watchman Jun 2016 #36

This falls under the restrictions so many pretend don't exist. pipoman Jun 2016 #42

The Minuteman III is too large PJMcK Jun 2016 #81

There also was not sarisataka Jun 2016 #43

What you said. I'm all in favor of flintlock possession meself. Hekate Jun 2016 #49

You mean like these? oneshooter Jun 2016 #115

Your two cents worth was written with 21st Century technology. Just sayin'. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #52

Are you suggesting that you think they were so ignorant... TipTok Jun 2016 #54

doesn't really matter...the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment beachbum bob Jun 2016 #60

"well regulated" those are the words that are the key to effective control liberal N proud Jun 2016 #77

Not really, they relate to an effective militia - 'well-armed and well-trained'...banning jmg257 Jun 2016 #87

All that time to reload makes one lose their stiffy. Darb Jun 2016 #66

The entire bill of rights was written then. We have to either live with the B of R as written-- merrily Jun 2016 #78

+1 treestar Jun 2016 #90

There was also paranoia about having a professional military Warpy Jun 2016 #107

Justifiable paranoia. Straw Man Jun 2016 #124

Ah yes, the old Flintlocks were the only weapons allowed by the 2nd Amendment. Calista241 Jun 2016 #119

And quill pens. Straw Man Jun 2016 #123

They also owned cannons. Adrahil Jun 2016 #135