Is the 1st Amendment being Interpreted Wrong?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is the 1st Amendment being Interpreted Wrong?

Posted: 8/12/2005 8:58:29 AM EDT

I've been doing alot of reading on English history in the 100 years before the the Declartion of Indepenence. It turns out that to legally publish, you had to get permission from the King. Even the Royal Society had to have charter from King Charles II stating that they could publish their scientific findings.

Now, there was no 'media' per say in Colonial America. There were newspapers and many of the Founding Fathers got their opinions out in pamphlets and anonymous letters to newspapers. What if the meaning of 'the press' in the 1st amendment isnt 'the media' but the 'printing press?'...the right of Americans to print their thoughts and opinions without having to seek permission from the govt. Any one have any thoughts on this?

Posted: 8/12/2005 9:03:05 AM EDT

[#1]

Right on my man!

Whenever someone tries to parse out the 2nd amendment and tell you it's just for the Militia you tell em to GO READ ALL THE OTHER AMENDMENTS!!! They're all written vague! They all use language and customs that are not commonly used in todays english.

So if you want to interpret them all strictly then do so. BUT PLEASE DO IT ACROSS THE BOARD. Do Not cherry pick the ones you like.

Posted: 8/12/2005 9:05:20 AM EDT

[#2]

While I think you are right, the amendment is generally thought to include all types of media that came afterward. If your interpretation were correct, then the 2nd amendment would only be good for muzzle loading arms. No Cartriges or repeater's or semi's etc...

Posted: 8/12/2005 9:11:24 AM EDT

[#3]

I dont think so. For the 2nd amend, it would mean firearm or sword, etc. I wasnt trying to say the 1st would be restricted to a physical printing press. I meant that maybe it doesnt mean "the media", "reporters," "journalists," exclusively but the right of all Americans to distribute their writings without govt interference

Posted: 8/12/2005 9:14:31 AM EDT

[#4]

To interpret it literally, it would in fact mean Press. A Printing press, even so far afield as the modern equivalent. Nothing at all to do with broadcast media as they are not, the Press.

Posted: 8/12/2005 9:19:14 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
While I think you are right, the amendment is generally thought to include all types of media that came afterward. If your interpretation were correct, then the 2nd amendment would only be good for muzzle loading arms. No Cartriges or repeater's or semi's etc...

That's exactly his point. NO CHERRY PICKING OF AMENDMENTS ALLOWED.

Don't go around saying freedom of the press when it was most likely intended to apply to a printing press, not talk radio, internet, tv, cable, etc...

Don't say the right to keep and bear arms applies only to less than 10 rounds, no bayonet, no imported weapons, no automatic, no CCW, no open, etc...

Posted: 8/12/2005 9:20:03 AM EDT

[#6]

How did 'the press' get turned into 'reporters,' 'journalists,' and news organisations in general?

Posted: 8/12/2005 12:15:09 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
While I think you are right, the amendment is generally thought to include all types of media that came afterward. If your interpretation were correct, then the 2nd amendment would only be good for muzzle loading arms. No Cartriges or repeater's or semi's etc...

That's exactly his point. NO CHERRY PICKING OF AMENDMENTS ALLOWED.

Don't go around saying freedom of the press when it was most likely intended to apply to a printing press, not talk radio, internet, tv, cable, etc...

Don't say the right to keep and bear arms applies only to less than 10 rounds, no bayonet, no imported weapons, no automatic, no CCW, no open, etc...

I get his point exactly. My point is that we don't believe the 2nd limits us to flintlocks. We can't allow ourselves to attempt to limit others rights to "Freedom of the press" and expect to have anycredibility when we say the second amendment applies to modern weaponry.

Posted: 8/12/2005 12:19:14 PM EDT

[#8]

Who is saying it DOESN'T apply to all the people?

Well, aside from the Federal Government with their stupid "Campaign Finance Reform Act".

Its going to be interesting to see what they do to someone who tries to print anything negative about a candidate in the next election without being a member of "the media".

Posted: 8/12/2005 12:20:30 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I think you are right, the amendment is generally thought to include all types of media that came afterward. If your interpretation were correct, then the 2nd amendment would only be good for muzzle loading arms. No Cartriges or repeater's or semi's etc...

That's exactly his point. NO CHERRY PICKING OF AMENDMENTS ALLOWED.

Don't go around saying freedom of the press when it was most likely intended to apply to a printing press, not talk radio, internet, tv, cable, etc...

Don't say the right to keep and bear arms applies only to less than 10 rounds, no bayonet, no imported weapons, no automatic, no CCW, no open, etc...

I get his point exactly. My point is that we don't believe the 2nd limits us to flintlocks. We can't allow ourselves to attempt to limit others rights to "Freedom of the press" and expect to have anycredibility when we say the second amendment applies to modern weaponry.

It should not be interpreted to just the printing press, and no cherry picking should be allowed. Unfortunitly, way too many people today use FREEDOM OF THE PRESS as an excuse to get information, not distribute it.

Posted: 8/12/2005 12:30:15 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
To interpret it literally, it would in fact mean Press. A Printing press, even so far afield as the modern equivalent. Nothing at all to do with broadcast media as they are not, the Press.

FREEDOM of expression means all forms of expression including broadcasting.

Posted: 8/12/2005 12:47:14 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
To interpret it literally, it would in fact mean Press. A Printing press, even so far afield as the modern equivalent. Nothing at all to do with broadcast media as they are not, the Press.

FREEDOM of expression means all forms of expression including broadcasting.

One minor problem with your argument......."FREEDOM of expression" is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Only "freedom of speech" and "of the press".

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.

For 200+ years this was clearly understood as a prohibition against the Federal Government and prevented it from "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press.

Posted: 8/12/2005 1:00:17 PM EDT

[#12]

Yes. It should only apply to the national guard.

-Storm

Posted: 8/12/2005 1:08:39 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To interpret it literally, it would in fact mean Press. A Printing press, even so far afield as the modern equivalent. Nothing at all to do with broadcast media as they are not, the Press.

FREEDOM of expression means all forms of expression including broadcasting.

One minor problem with your argument......."FREEDOM of expression" is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Only "freedom of speech" and "of the press".

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.

For 200+ years this was clearly understood as a prohibition against the Federal Government and prevented it from "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press.

As I read this thread, I'm reminded of the chatter of recent years regarding the 1st and 2nd Amdts. One poll showed that a majority of the people believed that the 1st didn't protect speech if it was offensive. It seems as though a majority believe in the concept of "reasonable restrictions" of rights.
And I just shake my head.

Posted: 8/12/2005 1:11:15 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To interpret it literally, it would in fact mean Press. A Printing press, even so far afield as the modern equivalent. Nothing at all to do with broadcast media as they are not, the Press.

FREEDOM of expression means all forms of expression including broadcasting.

One minor problem with your argument......."FREEDOM of expression" is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Only "freedom of speech" and "of the press".

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.

For 200+ years this was clearly understood as a prohibition against the Federal Government and prevented it from "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press.
As I read this thread, I'm reminded of the chatter of recent years regarding the 1st and 2nd Amdts. One poll showed that a majority of the people believed that the 1st didn't protect speech if it was offensive. It seems as though a majority believe in the concept of "reasonable restrictions" of rights.
And I just shake my head.

Exactly. It is only the speech that people disagee with or find offensive that needs to be protected.

Posted: 8/12/2005 1:19:31 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

One minor problem with your argument......."FREEDOM of expression" is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Only "freedom of speech" and "of the press".

For 200+ years this was clearly understood as a prohibition against the Federal Government and prevented it from "abridging" freedom of speech or of the press.

The CONstitution grants no rights, the bill of rights was supposed to protect the rights of the individual from tyranny of the government, both documents the BoR and U.S.C. have failed in intent only because the citizens have failed to enforce the contract in the spirit in which it was intended.

George Washington

If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

Posted: 8/12/2005 1:19:38 PM EDT

[#16]

Odd thing is on the second amendment the Militia stuff dosnt have any effect on the rest of the amendment. It says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

The militia part is just filler.it could have been

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

However now it is

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right ~~of the people~~ of the Government to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, screw the people.

Posted: 8/12/2005 1:22:06 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Odd thing is on the second amendment the Militia stuff dosnt have any effect on the rest of the amendment. It says
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
The militia part is just filler.it could have been
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

However now it is
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right ~~of the people~~ of the Government to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, screw the people.

No, the militia part wasn't filler. If I asked you why you needed guns, you'd probably tell me something about being prepared for emergencies requiring deadly force.
Which is what a militia does on a larger scale.
Nothing the Founders wrote is filler. I hope you NEVER tell anybody that a part of the Constitution is filler.

Posted: 8/12/2005 7:21:02 PM EDT

[#18]

Filler for the others, you could still have the right to bear arms with the last segment, however the first part unfortunately allows other to think that it is only for Militias. A period between the clauses would have helped things.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is the 1st Amendment being Interpreted Wrong?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us