Do you care about The First Amendment?

SOS

ONA
Wackbag Staff
Aug 14, 2000
48,116
8,880
938
USA
#1
Do you care about The First Amendment?

U.S. Constitution said:
[SIZE=+1]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/SIZE]

Do you care about The Bill of Rights?


Do you care about the rest of the amendments added throughout the years to the US Constitution?

Or would you like some people to make up new rules that contradicts The Constitution when it suits them? By guys in black robes?


I know there are people who want to censor "hate speech" and other unsettling speech but are prevented because of US' Constitution.


Let's not care about it. /loud voice

:really?:


Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
 

JoeyDVDZ

That's MR. MOJO, Motherfucker!
Aug 20, 2004
28,874
5,607
693
#4
I care very deeply about the constitution, and the bill of rights. I also acknowledge that it's an evolving concept, and has to move with the circumstances. I detest, however, people and/or governments that force these documents & their principles to bend to suit their own desires.
 

Konstantin K

Big League Poster
Aug 25, 2010
15,784
3,875
273
#6
I still care about the First Amendment, but I think it's time we start seeing other people.
 

CaffeeDiva

Registered User
Feb 14, 2012
523
0
0
#7
I didn't expect a thread to rival the Melissa one so soon.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,552
19,736
513
jersey
#8
The signal has gone up. Now it is only a matter of time...
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#9
I also acknowledge that it's an evolving concept, and has to move with the circumstances.
No. That's the whole point. We're born with these liberties. Government doesn't GIVE them to us via a piece of paper. That piece of paper tells government that they can't do certain things. To allow that to "move with the circumstances" is how you end up having certain words banned. Then certain guns. Then the police can just kick down your door and take your shit.

Freedoms are absolute.
 

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
34,674
2,022
458
Northern VA
#10
No. That's the whole point. We're born with these liberties. Government doesn't GIVE them to us via a piece of paper. That piece of paper tells government that they can't do certain things. To allow that to "move with the circumstances" is how you end up having certain words banned. Then certain guns. Then the police can just kick down your door and take your shit.

Freedoms are absolute.
But that's not true Don. We DO "move with the circumstances"; that's what Amendments are for. If we didn't move with the circumstances we'd still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#11
But that's not true Don. We DO "move with the circumstances"; that's what Amendments are for. If we didn't move with the circumstances we'd still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote.
Good point. Amendments are how the Constitution can be adapted, but the freedoms we're born with don't change regardless.
 

CaffeeDiva

Registered User
Feb 14, 2012
523
0
0
#13
Good point. Amendments are how the Constitution can be adapted, but the freedoms we're born with don't change regardless.
Yeah but we're born with the freedom to shit, piss, drive, fuck, ****, murder, hunt, and say whatever we can, where we can, when we can. We regulate these freedoms to keep society functioning in a way that the majority of people can enjoy.

The freedoms we should preserve are the ones that we can make intellectual arguments for, at least in my opinion. I think there is a valid argument for being able to express yourself, but also one that you should be restricted so that you're not expressing your hatred for your neighbor every night at 3am, outside of his bedroom window.

As far as firearms, I think you should absolutely be able to protect your house. Carrying laws and automatic weapons are issues I'm undecided on.

Either way, a right or freedom should make sense first, then have the Constitution protect it based on the merit of the right or freedom, not based on whether some asshole 300 years ago agreed or not. Merely pointing to the Constitution as some Godly ordained article is nonsensical, since it's clearly had flaws in it that required amendments.

These aren't all in response to you Don, just addressing some arguments that generally arise in discussions of this nature.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,352
21,977
398
Northern California
#14
Yeah but we're born with the freedom to shit, piss, drive, fuck, ****, murder, hunt, and say whatever we can, where we can, when we can. We regulate these freedoms to keep society functioning in a way that the majority of people can enjoy.

The freedoms we should preserve are the ones that we can make intellectual arguments for, at least in my opinion. I think there is a valid argument for being able to express yourself, but also one that you should be restricted so that you're not expressing your hatred for your neighbor every night at 3am, outside of his bedroom window.

As far as firearms, I think you should absolutely be able to protect your house. Carrying laws and automatic weapons are issues I'm undecided on.

Either way, a right or freedom should make sense first, then have the Constitution protect it based on the merit of the right or freedom, not based on whether some asshole 300 years ago agreed or not. Merely pointing to the Constitution as some Godly ordained article is nonsensical, since it's clearly had flaws in it that required amendments.

These aren't all in response to you Don, just addressing some arguments that generally arise in discussions of this nature.
So you think inalienable freedoms can be "argued" away? The 2nd Amendment was not created simply to protect our homes from intruders... it was created so that the citizens of this country could defend themselves from an oppressive government... foreign or domestic. In order to retain that ability automatic weapons are pretty much a necessity.

There is a way to change the Constitution... you amend it. If you can't gain enough support to amend it, then you fucking follow it, regardless of what you think about it. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the individual... not simply those of the majority... yet your argument completely dismantles that concept and makes the entire document arbitrary and subject to the whims of whichever group is in power at any given time.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#15
Yeah but we're born with the freedom to shit, piss, drive, fuck, ****, murder, hunt, and say whatever we can, where we can, when we can. We regulate these freedoms to keep society functioning in a way that the majority of people can enjoy.

The freedoms we should preserve are the ones that we can make intellectual arguments for, at least in my opinion. I think there is a valid argument for being able to express yourself, but also one that you should be restricted so that you're not expressing your hatred for your neighbor every night at 3am, outside of his bedroom window.

As far as firearms, I think you should absolutely be able to protect your house. Carrying laws and automatic weapons are issues I'm undecided on.

Either way, a right or freedom should make sense first, then have the Constitution protect it based on the merit of the right or freedom, not based on whether some asshole 300 years ago agreed or not. Merely pointing to the Constitution as some Godly ordained article is nonsensical, since it's clearly had flaws in it that required amendments.

These aren't all in response to you Don, just addressing some arguments that generally arise in discussions of this nature.
You misunderstand the meaning of freedom (at least the meaning accepted by most non-anarchists). Freedom/liberty is the right to do whatever you want whenever you want, so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's freedom in the process. Using that definition, there is no need to explain why one needs certain rights, because by definition those rights have no effect on anyone else. One should not have to ask permission to partake in an activity which does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
 

Stig

Wackbag's New Favorite Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,681
4,436
558
NH
#18
But what about The Children?
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#19
[video=youtube;-lCUg46bzXc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lCUg46bzXc[/video]
 

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
Jan 14, 2002
32,840
4,566
898
Land of misfit toys
#20
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And does this have anything to do with the dumping into a replay of last week with Ice T on the live internet feed and Cell phone app?
 

CaffeeDiva

Registered User
Feb 14, 2012
523
0
0
#21
So you think inalienable freedoms can be "argued" away? The 2nd Amendment was not created simply to protect our homes from intruders... it was created so that the citizens of this country could defend themselves from an oppressive government... foreign or domestic. In order to retain that ability automatic weapons are pretty much a necessity.

There is a way to change the Constitution... you amend it. If you can't gain enough support to amend it, then you fucking follow it, regardless of what you think about it. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the individual... not simply those of the majority... yet your argument completely dismantles that concept and makes the entire document arbitrary and subject to the whims of whichever group is in power at any given time.
What makes freedoms inalienable? Or do you just mean legally inalienable? I don't think that fundamentally valued freedoms can be argued away, I think the ones that are important can't be argued. That's my entire point. That if you have an argument that says that these are fundamental to happiness and human existence then it's a valid argument. If you can't articulate it, then you should learn how to, or reevaluate your position.

If you're a man of science, I don't get why you can't think that logic should prevail in human rights. That absolutely does not mean that you are subject to the whim of those in power. It's the exact opposite of that. Whims are irrational emotions. Intellectual arguments look at the fundamental issues at stake.

We already openly and happily restrict certain freedoms to protect certain rights. People talk about freedoms in absolutes when nobody really wants that.

I completely disagree with censorship, and I have a rational argument for that reasoning. I don't think that you should just dismantle the Constitution, but you have to acknowledge that it was written with flaws, by flawed men. Amendments would prove that. The Constitution should be there to establish fundamental and legally inalienable freedoms, but those freedoms need to be backed with reason.

Maybe you're misinterpreting my point or I'm doing a poor job of articulating it through text. I'm only saying that you need to have an intellectual reasoning to back up your argument over customs and history. If it's solely based on Founding Fathers this and America that, then you're following customs for customs' sake. "I leave symbols to the symbol-minded" would be a concise way of stating my position

You misunderstand the meaning of freedom (at least the meaning accepted by most non-anarchists). Freedom/liberty is the right to do whatever you want whenever you want, so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's freedom in the process. Using that definition, there is no need to explain why one needs certain rights, because by definition those rights have no effect on anyone else. One should not have to ask permission to partake in an activity which does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
My response was to the idea of having these sort of "innate" freedoms. I think there are essential freedoms that intellectually we agree are necessary in being a free human being. The idea that they are guaranteed at birth and the government is the only entity to strip them from us is what I was saying was invalid. Any person can control you through means of coercion, and often do. It's human behavior that exists in government, business, and crime.
 

CaffeeDiva

Registered User
Feb 14, 2012
523
0
0
#22
[video=youtube;-lCUg46bzXc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lCUg46bzXc[/video]
There's a cascading river of saliva upon which his Mars-like voice rafts out of his mouth. It's intolerable. I skipped past the music and heard him say, essentially, that slippery slope arguments are spot on, but this wetback's wet mouth prevented me from hearing him support that statement.
 

JoeyDVDZ

That's MR. MOJO, Motherfucker!
Aug 20, 2004
28,874
5,607
693
#23
But that's not true Don. We DO "move with the circumstances"; that's what Amendments are for. If we didn't move with the circumstances we'd still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote.
This is what I was trying to say; apparently I didn't choose my words wisely. I do actually agree with you Don, but the amendments are to address issues not specifically adressed in the main body of the document.
 

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
Jan 14, 2002
32,840
4,566
898
Land of misfit toys
#24
John Locke on Liberty..one of the things the Founding Fathers used:
The NATURAL liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what that legislative power shall enact according to the trust put in it.

Freedom then is not what Sir R. R. Tells us, O. A. 55, “ a liberty for every on to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.” But freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power where that rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man; as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
12,966
2,968
258
Sunnydale
#25
Last week John Stossel show was on this topic, he talked about all the hate he gets from the left and how all these left wing groups are demanding that FOX fire him because of his views on civil rights. He went out into the streets of NY and asked people if they believe in free speech and most said they do but when he asked about specific speech a lot of them said it should be illegal to say hateful, racist, or sexist things.