PDA

View Full Version : Question about the "Oath Of Office"


Fx21basser
01-08-2013, 9:56 AM
I do not post often but I lurk daily and read the post of other members so I hope some can answer the questions I have.
1. If the right to Bear arms is not a privilege that just can be taken away but is a right why are we having this discussion about gun bans?
2. If elected officials take an "Oath" to up hold the The Constitution" and the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and they try to introduce laws that are not constitutional does that not make the an" Enemy Of The State" and should be punished accordingly by the law? And again if this is true why are we having this debate?
3. Should Congress men and women be held to only two terms? This seems to me to be another big problem is the "Career Politician"who may be guided by special intrest than the right thing.
There are many more questions but these are three that think about most and I will wait for your respones.

keenkeen
01-08-2013, 10:11 AM
I do not post often but I lurk daily and read the post of other members so I hope some can answer the questions I have.
1. If the right to bare arms is not a privilege that just can be taken away but is a right why are we having this discussion about gun bans?
2. If elected officials take an "Oath" to up hold the The Constitution" and the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and they try to introduce laws that are not constitutional does that not make the an" Enemy Of The State" and should be punished accordingly by the law? And again if this is true why are we having this debate?
3. Should Congress men and women be held to only two terms? This seems to me to be another big problem is the "Career Politician"who may be guided by special intrest than the right thing.
There are many more questions but these are three that think about most and I will wait for your respones.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg

vs.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/barearms.jpg

Kukuforguns
01-08-2013, 10:40 AM
I do not post often but I lurk daily and read the post of other members so I hope some can answer the questions I have.
1. If the right to bare arms is not a privilege that just can be taken away but is a right why are we having this discussion about gun bans?
2. If elected officials take an "Oath" to up hold the The Constitution" and the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and they try to introduce laws that are not constitutional does that not make the an" Enemy Of The State" and should be punished accordingly by the law? And again if this is true why are we having this debate?
3. Should Congress men and women be held to only two terms? This seems to me to be another big problem is the "Career Politician"who may be guided by special intrest than the right thing.
There are many more questions but these are three that think about most and I will wait for your respones.
Let's look at the 1st Amendment with this hypothetical. Rock is a movie star, and his target audience is women because of his good looks. Bob goes on talk shows and falsely tells people that Bob is Rock's gay lover and that Rock gave Bob herpes, HIV, and crabs. This false statement destroys Rock's career.

Question 1: Did Bob do something wrong? This is an easy one.
Question 2: Can Rock sue Bob? Yes, it's called defamation.
Question 3: Does Rock's defamation action infringe Bob's right to free speech? The defamation cause of action certainly limits Bob's right to free speech.
Question 4: Does it bother you that Rock has the right to sue Bob for destroying his career?

So, we now know that the Bill of Rights does not mean that the protected rights are absolute. With respect to the 2d Amendment, you will find little (some, but not much) support in the gun-rights community for the position that we all have the right to keep and bear suitcase nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the nuclear weapon is undeniably an "arm." Remember when we called it the arms race? So, it appears that even the gun-rights community recognizes limits on the right to keep and bear arms.

Having recognized that there are limits on the right to keep and bear arms, the real issue is finally revealed -- what are the limits on the right to keep and bear arms? This is a question that no one in the country can answer right now. There simply is not enough dispositive case law interpreting the right.

So, to answer your questions:
1) We're having the discussion because the scope of the right to keep and bear arms is ill-defined.
2) Politicians who introduce laws that are unconstitutional are not violating their oath if there is a non-frivolous argument that the law could be constitutional. Legislators have an independent duty to consider the constitutionality of the laws they propose.
3) No, our Senators and Representatives should not be limited to two terms. Given the length of office for members of the House, we would lose an immense amount of institutional knowledge if if members were limited to two terms.

Mottmcfly
01-08-2013, 10:46 AM
Let's look at the 1st Amendment with this hypothetical. Rock is a movie star, and his target audience is women because of his good looks. Bob goes on talk shows and falsely tells people that Bob is Rock's gay lover and that Rock gave Bob herpes, HIV, and crabs. This false statement destroys Rock's career.

Question 1: Did Bob do something wrong? This is an easy one.
Question 2: Can Rock sue Bob? Yes, it's called defamation.
Question 3: Does Rock's defamation action infringe Bob's right to free speech? The defamation cause of action certainly limits Bob's right to free speech.
Question 4: Does it bother you that Rock has the right to sue Bob for destroying his career?

So, we now know that the Bill of Rights does not mean that the protected rights are absolute. With respect to the 2d Amendment, you will find little (some, but not much) support in the gun-rights community for the position that we all have the right to keep and bear suitcase nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the nuclear weapon is undeniably an "arm." Remember when we called it the arms race? So, it appears that even the gun-rights community recognizes limits on the right to keep and bear arms.

Having recognized that there are limits on the right to keep and bear arms, the real issue is finally revealed -- what are the limits on the right to keep and bear arms? This is a question that no one in the country can answer right now. There simply is not enough dispositive case law interpreting the right.

So, to answer your questions:
1) We're having the discussion because the scope of the right to keep and bear arms is ill-defined.
2) Politicians who introduce laws that are unconstitutional are not violating their oath if there is a non-frivolous argument that the law could be constitutional. Legislators have an independent duty to consider the constitutionality of the laws they propose.
3) No, our Senators and Representatives should not be limited to two terms. Given the length of office for members of the House, we would lose an immense amount of institutional knowledge if if members were limited to two terms.

Well Done!

SKSer
01-08-2013, 10:55 AM
Let's look at the 1st Amendment with this hypothetical. Rock is a movie star, and his target audience is women because of his good looks. Bob goes on talk shows and falsely tells people that Bob is Rock's gay lover and that Rock gave Bob herpes, HIV, and crabs. This false statement destroys Rock's career.

Question 1: Did Bob do something wrong? This is an easy one.
Question 2: Can Rock sue Bob? Yes, it's called defamation.
Question 3: Does Rock's defamation action infringe Bob's right to free speech? The defamation cause of action certainly limits Bob's right to free speech.
Question 4: Does it bother you that Rock has the right to sue Bob for destroying his career?

So, we now know that the Bill of Rights does not mean that the protected rights are absolute. With respect to the 2d Amendment, you will find little (some, but not much) support in the gun-rights community for the position that we all have the right to keep and bear suitcase nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the nuclear weapon is undeniably an "arm." Remember when we called it the arms race? So, it appears that even the gun-rights community recognizes limits on the right to keep and bear arms.

Having recognized that there are limits on the right to keep and bear arms, the real issue is finally revealed -- what are the limits on the right to keep and bear arms? This is a question that no one in the country can answer right now. There simply is not enough dispositive case law interpreting the right.

So, to answer your questions:
1) We're having the discussion because the scope of the right to keep and bear arms is ill-defined.
2) Politicians who introduce laws that are unconstitutional are not violating their oath if there is a non-frivolous argument that the law could be constitutional. Legislators have an independent duty to consider the constitutionality of the laws they propose.
3) No, our Senators and Representatives should not be limited to two terms. Given the length of office for members of the House, we would lose an immense amount of institutional knowledge if if members were limited to two terms.

Well said. In my opinion, and once again what my opinion is, is that we as individuals have a right to bear any arms that an individual base line infantry soldier is allowed to carry. I must stress individual, that cuts out all the "rocket launcher, tank, drone arguments". I think that we all have a right to be trained on any and all equipment all the way up (getting security clearances if necessary depending on the equipment) free of charge. I believe this is the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment, once again, just my opinion. I am just a guy on the internet ;)