What's up with Federal Plaza in NYC?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by asdf, Jun 18, 2004.

  1. asdf

    Big Bill Guest

    Did you ever read the first ten ammendments?

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jul 1, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. asdf

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Yes. Have you ever listed liberties widely enjoyed but not explicitly
    granted by the Constitution?
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 1, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. asdf

    Azzz1588 Guest



    Dont see photography listed there sorry.

    I DO see the right to own firearms though !!!
    Yet the liberals would have no problem getting rid
    of them.

    Kinda funny how some would champion a supposed to right
    to take pictures, yet would have no problem eliminating a
    gaurenteed right to own firearms....................





























































    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Jul 1, 2004
  4. asdf

    Azzz1588 Guest


    Care to demonstrate an example ?





    Ya know, except for getting near airports, trainstations, and federal
    buildings, (I live near Wash DC) I have not felt the effect on any
    of my freedoms since 9.11 I do all my daily things, and they
    just havnt been curtailed, and or changed. I go shooting at the
    NRA range, fishing, very rarely hunting, and everything else I
    used to do, and nothing has changed. I've been through one
    DWI roadblock (I hadnt been drinking) and numerous speed
    traps (no tickets in the past 12 years either :) Both of which
    aer sources of revenue generation by the local police, always
    has been always will be. Dont speed or get trashed in our town.

    So please tell me just how have I been affected in a meangfull way ?











































    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Jul 1, 2004
  5. asdf

    PTRAVEL Guest

    There is no guaranteed right to own firearms for two reasons:

    1. The Bill of Rights are restrictions on the federal government.
    Individual restritions have been construed to apply to the states through a
    process called selective incorporation through the 14th Amendment. The 2nd
    Amendment has never been selectively incorporated and, therefore, does not
    (yet) apply to state restrictions on gun ownership.

    2. Very few restrictions in Bill of Rights are absolute. For example, the
    1st Amendment provides that, "Congress shall make no laws abridging the
    freedom of speech . . ." Of course "shall make no laws" is not an
    absolute -- there are plenty of laws which abridge speech, e.g. trademark
    and copyright laws, laws against treason and sedition, laws against fraud
    and defamation, etc. Presumably the framers felt the 1st Amendment was the
    most important amendment, otherwise it wouldn't have come first.
    Accordingly, there is no reason to think that the 2nd Amendment, which
    follows the first, constitutes an absolute restriction on abriding the right
    to bear arms -- 200 years of continuous and consistent jurisprudence
    establish that the restrictions set out in the Bill of Rights are _not_
    absolutes. Accordingly, given a sufficiently compelling or important state
    interest (which are the standards applied to testing the constitutionality
    of laws which abridge speech) would constitute a constitutional abridgement
    of the right to bear arms. Note, too, that this has nothing to do with the
    militia qualifier, which raises a whole other set of questions.

    With respect to photography, making photographs is, from a constitutional
    perspective, speech. As with any other form of speech, it can be regulated,
    i.e. abridged, if the regulation is content neutral, a reasonable
    time/place/manner restriction, subject to an important or compelling state
    interest (the latter if not content neutral), etc.

    And, by point of reference, I am not a "liberal" (or, at least, not in the
    sense that you're using the word) and I am a gun owner.

    I'm also a lawyer who understands constitutional law.
     
    PTRAVEL, Jul 1, 2004
  6. asdf

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Arms are mentioned; firearms are not.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 2, 2004
  7. asdf

    Mxsmanic Guest

    If you wait until you feel the effect, it will be too late.
    Some people learn best through experience.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 2, 2004
  8. asdf

    Big Bill Guest

    This has absolutely nothing do to with what you said, and what I
    responded to.
    You've been shown to be speaking without knowledge.
    Quit while you're ahead.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jul 2, 2004
  9. asdf

    Big Bill Guest

    Hogwash.
    Where the Bill of Righs says "the People" it means "the People" in ALL
    of the ammendments.
    Except, as you seem to think, the second.
    Where, evidently, "the People" means the National Guard, which didn't
    even exist then.
    You do realize that you're arguing against yourself, don't you?
    Well, I've met a lot of people who "understand constitutional law" who
    have a decided lack of understanding that a few evenings reading he
    Federalist would help clear up.
    The people who wrote the Constitution didn't do so in a vacuum. There
    was a LOT of written commentary att he time, a lot of which has been
    preserved.
    Take the Second Ammendment, for example; if the contempoary writings
    were read, the concept of "the militiia qualifier" would disappear,
    because it's not a qualifier, according to the writers.
    Point is, if someone's understanding is based on other than an
    understanding of the very basics of the thing in question, it's often
    wrong.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jul 2, 2004
  10. asdf

    Big Bill Guest

    See what I mean?

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jul 2, 2004
  11. asdf

    Mxsmanic Guest

    It's a continuation of the same line of argument I had been following
    previously.
    Because you say so?
    So that I don't get too much further ahead?
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 2, 2004
  12. asdf

    Mxsmanic Guest

    No.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 2, 2004
  13. asdf

    Big Bill Guest

    What do *you* think "arms" means in the Second Ammendment?

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jul 2, 2004
  14. asdf

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Arms.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 3, 2004
  15. Actually the right Bear Arms, which should have read Bear Hugs.
     
    Wise Ass Poaster, Jul 3, 2004
  16. asdf

    PTRAVEL Guest

    If you don't understand that the Bill of Rights was written as a
    limitation on the federal government then you have no understanding of
    the Constitution at all.

    You didn't read what I wrote at all.
    Same old tired argument that is completely unresponsive to what I
    wrote. The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the federal government's
    ability to limit firearm ownership. It is not an absolute limitation.
    This has nothing to do with militia vs. citizen, and everything to do
    with how the Bill of Rights is construed. Re-read what I wrote. If
    you have something to say that relates to it, I'll respond.
    I'm not arguing against anything. I'm explaining how the Bill of
    Rights is construed. You've assumed an argument that I didn't make.
    The Federalist does't construe the Constitution. The US Supreme Court
    does.

    So what?
    You see . . . you're attributing to me an argument that I didn't make.
    I don't care what militia means -- it's irrelevant to my discussion,
    which is that neither the first nor the second amendments are
    construed as abolutes.
    My understanding is based on the study of Constitutional Law, and
    reading the hundreds of Supreme Court decisions which, over the past
    200+ years, have construed it.
     
    PTRAVEL, Jul 3, 2004
  17. asdf

    Azzz1588 Guest




    Since when ??

    The constituation was origionally written so any educated
    landowner at the time could interpet it without the courts.

    It's only recently that we have given this responsibility
    (ie; right IMHO) to the courts............................









































































    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
     
    Azzz1588, Jul 6, 2004
  18. 1803 at the latest.
    Recently as in since Marbury v. Madison, right?
     
    Matt Silberstein, Jul 6, 2004
  19. asdf

    PTRAVEL Guest

    Since the Constitution was written. Have you read it?

    Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
    vested in one supreme Court . . .

    Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all
    Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.

    And, of course, as confirmed in Marbury v. Madison which, if I recall, was
    decided in 1803 or thereabouts.
    So what? The Constitution provides that judicial power vests in a supreme
    court and other inferior courts, not in individual landowners.
    If you consider 200 years ago "recent."
     
    PTRAVEL, Jul 7, 2004
  20. Recall? What is the point of trying to recall things, I just googled
    it.
     
    Matt Silberstein, Jul 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.