Do you believe Democrats want to destroy the 2nd Amendment, as Trump has said?
I’m a gun-hating liberal Democrat from hell, but no, I’m not out to destroy the 2nd Amendment. I’ve accepted the fact that school shootings, mass shootings in general and thousands of suicides by firearm every year are now just a part of being a US citizen. Millions of Americans seem to believe that the best way to be safe is for every one of us to be armed to the teeth. The answer to gun violence is more guns. The problem isn’t too many guns, but too few. 300 million firearms aren’t enough. Aren’t enough to make us feel safe.So now we’ll live in a country made up of thousands of Dodge Cities, like from those old Westerns. Everyone will be packin’. Everyone will be capable of returning fire if a shootout erupts. That will make us safe.I view a gun like I view superpowers. I mean, think about it. A fifteen year old kid with an Uzi could take out three highly trained Samurai from 16th century Japan. If that ain’t a superpower I don’t know what is. And we’ve decided that everyone should have this power. So we’ll all be safe.If guns make us safer why are so many people in this country scared? What will it take to free us from our fear? We’re the most well armed society in history with the biggest military juggernaut ever assembled to back us up and yet, we live in fear. We fear our government, we fear foreigners and our fellow citizens. We’ve put more of these fellow citizens in prison than any other society on earth. And still the fear remains.It comes down to what kind of society we want. These days kids are afraid to go to school. And with good reason. That just ain’t right. It’s asserted by many that the answer to this problem is, you guessed it, more guns! What responsibility do we, the adults in the room, bear to these kids for the sorry state of affairs we have allowed to develop? If they begin to believe that guns don’t make us safer can you blame them? What they see is more and more guns permeating their society as their safety gets less and less certain. What are they supposed to think?If I could wave a magic wand and have all the guns disappear I’d do it. But that won’t happen. I’m aware of the fact that if we outlawed guns we’d just create another underground economy and turn millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals. I get it. What has to happen is that people decide they don’t want guns. That they’re safer without them. This change has to come from the ground up, not the top down. I get that too.
What's your take on the 1st Amendment?
consevative not party affiliated. The thing that most people have wrong about the first amendment is that is says that the church should not be involved in the state. It reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; It states that the government can not get involved in the church or establish a religion, it also says that the government can not stop people from practicing their religion. It says nothing about people who are in office have to give up their religion or that their religious views should not be involved in their political stances. Today a lot of people talk about seperation of church and state but this did not happen until the late 1950's. If people would read about the founding fathers they would know that they were deeply religious people. The first thing they protected were peoples right to serve their god in the way they seen fit without government involvement. President Jefferson, in his inaugrual address stated the following. http://www.princeton.edu/%7Etjpapers/ina... First inauguration And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, A lot of people try to belittle anyone of faith today. It has been shown in this election by the many attacks on Sarah Palin because of her religion. Another part of the constitution says that no religious test shall be allowed to anyone running for office. I would like to also say that Barrack Obama has suffered much bashing about his religion. I personally think he is a Christian but many try to say he is not. Either way it should not disqualify him as a candidate.
Is racism protected by the First Amendment?
The First Amendment absolutely protects your right to be a racist: you have the right to hold racist beliefs, to state those beliefs out loud, to publish writings in which you express those beliefs, and to choose who you associate with on the basis of race, if that is your preference.What the First Amendment does not allow you to do:Commit any act which is a crime;While conducting a business which engages in interstate commerce, provide or refuse to provide employment, housing, or public accommodation in a manner which discriminates on the basis of race;While receiving any form of federal funding, provide or refuse to provide education, health care, or many other regulated services in a manner which discriminates on the basis of race; orWhile acting under any form of legal authority, deny or attempt to deny any person the full protection of their civil rights on the basis of race.All of these things, and many others, are prohibited by law, and the First Amendment will provide no defense in a prosecution for violations of these laws.So, yes, the First Amendment protects your right to be a racist, but you will find that your right to put your racist principles into practice is very limited.Furthermore, while the First Amendment protects your right to be a racist, it also protects the right of other people to hold you in contempt for being a racist. And there is nothing in federal law that prohibits anyone (other than someone actually acting on behalf of the government) from discriminating against racists, and thus you can expect to be discriminated against for this reason.
Democrats, do you agree that the first amendment only applies when you agree with those using it?
No, youre a little confused. Youre thinking of Trump He only agrees with having a free press when he agrees with those using it. Moon shot writes: "You are retarded." wow, I didn't know you were such an intellectual and great debater.
1st amendment current event?
I have provided a very recent dispute from the Minneapolis Tribune. It concerns the voting polls and freedom of speech around them. Very relavent.
Does Quora’s BNBR rule go against the 1st Amendment?
Hello OP. From some of your other questions I gather that you’re in eighth grade.I am not from the USA and so had to look this up. Apparently, eighth graders are typically between the ages of 13 and 14. So, at the risk of being annoying, I am not surprised you didn’t know the answer to this question; but since you’re a teenager I think it’s great that you decided to ask people who do know the answer, rather than rely on the word of uninformed people or rumour. (I would have loved something like Quora when I was 13 or 14.)I can only echo what everyone else has said: does BNBR interfere with freedom of speech? No, it doesn’t.The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects you from being punished by the US government for what you say. But Quora is a private business. It is our host. It allows us to post questions and answer them, provided we follow its terms and conditions. If we break them, it is entitled to kick us out. It doesn’t stop us from being able to say whatever we want anywhere else; just not on Quora.Consider the following analogy:A man can walk around wearing a t-shirt that says ‘LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE ARE SCUM’, and that’s his right. He is taking responsibility for that statement.But suppose he builds a big sign and paints on it ‘LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE ARE SCUM’ in ten-foot-high letters. Suppose, then, that he wants to put up this sign in his front yard, but he can’t, because there is a giant hedge surrounding it, so nobody will be able to see the sign.So instead, he goes next door and puts it up in his neighbour’s front yard, where it can be clearly seen.His neighbour, who isn’t left-handed but who has no problem with left-handed people, sees this happening and comes out of his house.‘Hey, what are you doing?’ he says. ‘Take that down!’‘No,’ says the lefty-hater. ‘And you can’t make me take it down. That goes against the First Amendment.’Do you see how the lefty-hater is wrong here? He’s making his neighbour look responsible for sentiments which are entirely his own. He is not entitled to demand that his neighbour host his sign. Supposing a horde of angry left-handed people see the sign and decide to burn the neighbour’s house down? If the neighbour were to try the excuse that it’s not his sign, then the mob is entitled to reply ‘But you still hosted it, so you must not have a problem with it.’So no, BNBR is not an infringement of freedom of speech. The price we pay for making statements here is that Quora can stop us whenever it wants.
Does the first amendment mean that we can say whatever we want?
No, there is freedom of speech. It works both ways. A person can say what they want, but they must also know that there are laws for saying false things. Like attacking the character of another and freely saying lies about them - well, you can say it if you want - but then they can also turn around and sue you if it caused damage and was proved untrue. Pulling out a dictionary is a great way to correct a person - but definitions are sometimes vague and one persons thoughts and degrees may differ from anothers. Here is Socialism Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. To what degree of ownership does this make it true? The government has bought into banks and into insurance coverage and 401K's for example - is it socialism? Some think yes, others think no. Do we call them loans? Or does the governement own shares now that are nearly complete shares - 80%. If you view it as a loan in which the government will eventually allow the companies to buy back the shares - then it wouldn't be socialism to some. Just the mere fact that it has been done, is in socialism to others. It is a matter of perspective - each is individual. Same would apply to the car industry if.when done. Same with the mortgage industry. YOUR interpretation does not always equate to ANOTHERS interpretation because it doesn't say in the definition to what degree specificlly when it crosses a line. If the definition said - when it passes 75% of a industry is bought - it is socialism then you can be specific - but it doesn't say that. So it is a debate it seems rather than an attack - hough some people do have such strong personal definition - that it may be an attack - but by what means can you prove your ideas to be correct compared to anothers when the definition is not specific?
What kind of regulations of the second amendment will lead to a reduction of killings by guns?
The question is, What kind of regulations of the second amendment will lead to a reduction of killings by guns?(1)No “regulations” of the 2nd Amendment are allowed or allowable. This is firmly and irrevocably established and will remain so.As to the supposed “necessity” in order to “reduce killings by guns” it’s therefore necessary to explain that such regulation of the 2nd Amendment isn’t really needed for that purpose, either.(2) Those who say that training, licensing and proper storage will significantly reduce gun accidents are often the same people who are actively opposed to the very existence of the National Rifle Association of America. This is a clear contradiction because the NRA is and has been since its beginning in the 1870s the organization designated to be the source of firearms training. An NRA Instructor Certification is “gold” in the firearms owning community.National Rifle Association - WikipediaIn order to expand the NRA’s activities and involvement all around the country, very much including K-12 firearms training. Yet again, such people who claim to be for “training, licensing and proper storage “ are the same people opposing that idea every chance they get.If those making that statement about training, licensing and proper storage are not liars and hypocrites it stands to reason they will be as energized in getting the NRA bigger as they have been in criticizing and demonizing the NRA.(3) The other so-called “salient” argument put forth by one political faction is, “Reducing the number of guns is logically going to lead to reduction in gun deaths.” Well yes, but where do we start, should it be with North Korea or with all of the Arab countries? We can’t start anywhere in the United States because over 99.9999 percent of the guns here are owned by non criminal citizens and those are protected properties under the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
Democrats Attack Free Speech with Disclose Act...will you call and e-mail your senator?
Just like the forced unionization, er, 'card check' bill that the dems pushed to intimidate people into joining unions, this so-called dislcosure act is an attempt to attack political contributors. They are still apoplectic over the Citizens United ruling and are trying their best to undermine it. From the article which is linked below: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the latest push for the DISCLOSE Act has nothing to do with conservative super PACs dramatically outpacing liberals in 2012. “No, it has nothing to do with that. This is about our democracy. It’s stunning that the Supreme Court would take such an undermining of democracy approach to how we go forward,” Pelosi said in a press conference, referring to the Citizens United decision that declared corporations are constitutionally protected from restrictions on their political giving. Democrats view forced public disclosure as a means to effectively dismantle Citizens United. Pelosi and others have called for a constitutional amendment to nullify the case. “I completely disagree with what they did but everybody should disclose and I think we should, that’s why I say, amend the Constitution to do away with that, and reform the system so that we have citizen participation, and get rid of these PACs,” Pelosi said Thursday. McConnell has been at the forefront of slamming both the legislation and Democratic efforts to amend the Constitution in this way as threats to the First Amendment. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/12/republ...
Is it immoral for an adult to attack a youth? As in the case of the far-right in America attacking the activist survivors of the Parkland shooting?
“Is it immoral for an adult to attack a youth? As in the case of the far-right in America attacking the activist survivors of the Parkland shooting?“Columbine High SchoolEric Harris, 18Dylan Bennet Klebold, 17Sandy Hook ElementaryAdam Lanza, 20Stoneman Douglas High SchoolDavid Hogg, 17Nikolas Cruz, 19All of these youths have been “attacked” by adults, was it immoral?Before you say anyone 18 years old and over isn’t a youth, keep in mind Eric Harris was still in high school, Nikolas Cruz was in high school about six months before and still entitled to attend, and Adam Lanza had mental health issues which effected both his mental and emotional maturity.Also, each of the school shooters were mentally ill, but were still attacked by the media and public, while David Hogg is not; he’s even been described as intelligent, mature, and articulate. If he was still in office, he’d probably already have drank a beer with Obama, but that’s okay, he has a promising political/editorial career before him.Let’s move on to the second part of your question. You’ve asserted that David Hogg and others are survivors. What exactly did he survive, was he facing down the gunman? Was his life truly in danger? Or was he elsewhere on the campus free from danger, or possibly not even on campus at all as some news clips of his statements suggest?Is the deputy sheriff who didn’t go into the building to confront the gunman a survivor, after all, like David Hogg, he heard the gunfire too?No, it’s not immoral for adults to attack a youth who is presenting himself as an authority on an issue. This is how children learn. And in the case of a child who is practically an adult, it’s definitely suitable to attack them when they’re attempting to ban the rights of others.