[Shootnlead]

Is it more acceptable to use Constitutional protections of the 2nd Amendment to guarantee our right to bear arms than it is use the protections of the 5th Amendment as it pertains to Miranda?

 

[whoppo]

It is acceptable to use ALL of our Constitutionally protected Rights whenever the situation calls for it... period.

 

[SIGP250]

Is it more acceptable to use Constitutional protections of the 2nd Amendment to guarantee our right to bear arms than it is use the protections of the 5th Amendment as it pertains to Miranda?

Each Amendment has a separate purpose.

The Second Amendment is a Right. It should be is fairly straight forward: 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. Some people however find the wording to be confusing. For me, it means exactly what it says and there should no debate about the meaning of the words.

The Fifth amendment is about trial and punishment. Its provisions were extended in 1966 to include the "reading of rights", the Miranda Rights. The 5th states that the government must follow due process of the law before punishing a person and that all citizens have a right to trial by jury. It also states that a person can't be put on trial twice for the same crime and also that a person on trial for a crime does not have to testify against themselves in court, "Pleading the 5th" The Fifth Amendment is sometimes referred to as the Double Jeopardy and the Due Process Clause.

If you are a law abiding citizen, you are always protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Rights extended to you by the 5th amendment guarantee you certain Rights should you be arrested and after.

 

[Shootnlead]

Each Amendment has a separate purpose.

The Second Amendment is a Right. It should be is fairly straight forward: 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. Some people however find the wording to be confusing. For me, it means exactly what it says and there should no debate about the meaning of the words.

The Fifth amendment is about trial and punishment. Its provisions were extended in 1966 to include the "reading of rights", the Miranda Rights. The 5th states that the government must follow due process of the law before punishing a person and that all citizens have a right to trial by jury. It also states that a person can't be put on trial twice for the same crime and also that a person on trial for a crime does not have to testify against themselves in court, "Pleading the 5th" The Fifth Amendment is sometimes referred to as the Double Jeopardy and the Due Process Clause.

If you are a law abiding citizen, you are always protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Rights extended to you by the 5th amendment guarantee you certain Rights should you be arrested and after.

I understand they serve different purposes...

My question was is it more acceptable to use one than the other, for it's intended purpose.

The reason I ask this is that gun folks never question someone's use of the 2nd Amendment, but frequently disparage those that use the 5th Amendment. Seems to be very hypocritical, to me.

 

[maxwell97]

I understand they serve different purposes...

My question was is it more acceptable to use one than the other, for it's intended purpose.

The reason I ask this is that gun folks never question someone's use of the 2nd Amendment, but frequently disparage those that use the 5th Amendment. Seems to be very hypocritical, to me.

Both the 2nd and the 5th are sometimes associated with criminality. It's just a lot easier with the 5th, since by definition it's only used by those accused of a crime.

 

[Shootnlead]

Both the 2nd and the 5th are sometimes associated with criminality. It's just a lot easier with the 5th, since by definition it's only used by those accused of a crime.

I concur...

But, it is a protection for all citizens...

 

[mcp1810]

There is more to the Fifth Amendment than most people realize. The Fifth also covers takings by the government. This includes not only property actually seized under eminent domain but also lost value due to regulatory actions.

 

[Hoganbeg]

Can you refine your question? Acceptable to whom, and why would you ask this? There are always some who would deny a person his rights based on their own selfish beliefs and agenda. A rights acceptability or popularity is ultimately a moot point because it is a right, not a privilege. Some of our rights have become controversial because of a long-running propaganda campaign to undermine support for them. For example, look at the current movement among the college crowd to limit free speech.

 

[Shootnlead]

Acceptable to whom?

Acceptable to anyone...cause it seems that a lot of people have a real problem with people using it as it applies to Miranda rights.

I, actually, think that these people don't understand the connection between Miranda and the Constitution.

 

[Hoganbeg]

I would agree that most people do not understand their rights. That is one reason they are so willing to lose them.

The only people I know of who would be against Miranda Rights and the right to remain silent are those charged with collecting evidence or prosecuting crimes. Those would be its "natural" enemies. However, if we are to maintain a system wherein guilt must be proven instead of innocence, those Fifth Amendment rights are vital to a fair trial. It is yet another example of the limits placed upon government.

 

[Ianthin]

The reason I ask this is that gun folks never question someone's use of the 2nd Amendment, but frequently disparage those that use the 5th Amendment. Seems to be very hypocritical, to me.

Creating exceptions regarding when a right protected by the constitution applies hasn't worked out well for the second. Yet as you say, so many want exceptions made for others.

I get the emotional side of it, but we can't let emotion dictate our view of the Constitution.

 

[SIGP250]

I understand they serve different purposes...

My question was is it more acceptable to use one than the other, for it's intended purpose.

The reason I ask this is that gun folks never question someone's use of the 2nd Amendment, but frequently disparage those that use the 5th Amendment. Seems to be very hypocritical, to me.

It is for the most part a given that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. It is though constantly under attack by gun control advocates under the false premise that guns are the cause of most violence when nothing could be further from the truth. Ironically, it is also one of the few rights that one can lose due to a conviction for a criminal offense.

A convicted felon though still maintains his 5th amendment rights.

I'm not seeing any direct parallel between the 2nd and the 5th. I may not be understating your line of questioning but I'll give it another shot.

Since a good part of the US Constitution is based on English Common law, parts of the 5th amendment were the same in Great Britain. For example, each county believed that all people had the right to be tried by a jury.

Other clauses and amendments that led to the Bill of Rights were added due to the outrage of the early colonists against the treatment, and the laws, imposed by the British.

There was no precedence for the 2nd Amendment. Nothing like it existed in English Common Law.

That may be part of the reason in America we have a Right to bear arms and citizens of Australia don't.

 

[Shootnlead]

It is for the most part a given that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. It is though constantly under attack by gun control advocates under the false premise that guns are the cause of most violence when nothing could be further from the truth. Ironically, it is also one of the few rights that one can lose due to a conviction for a criminal offense.

A convicted felon though still maintains his 5th amendment rights.

I'm not seeing any direct parallel between the 2nd and the 5th. I may not be understating your line of questioning but I'll give it another shot.

Since a good part of the US Constitution is based on English Common law, parts of the 5th amendment were the same in Great Britain. For example, each county believed that all people had the right to be tried by a jury.

Other clauses and amendments that led to the Bill of Rights were added due to the outrage of the early colonists against the treatment, and the laws, imposed by the British.

There was no precedence for the 2nd Amendment. Nothing like it existed in English Common Law.

That may be part of the reason in America we have a Right to bear arms and citizens of Australia don't.

My point is...how can so many people strongly advocate one Constitutional right and then broadly disparage another.

In my opinion, there are far too many people that vigorously object to accused criminals exercising their right to make LE abide by the rules of evidence collection and use in prosecution.

If it is fair for gun owners to insist that their right to gun ownership is honored...it is also right for accused criminals demand that the government handle their case properly.

 

[Doogie]

I just tell everyone...I didn do nuffin....didn see nuffin....didn hear nuffin............it's my "Nuffin Rights" :embarassed:

 

[SIGP250]

My point is...how can so many people strongly advocate one Constitutional right and then broadly disparage another.

In my opinion, there are far too many people that vigorously object to accused criminals exercising their right to make LE abide by the rules of evidence collection and use in prosecution.

If it is fair for gun owners to insist that their right to gun ownership is honored...it is also right for accused criminals demand that the government handle their case properly.

Yep, in a perfect world. Fact is, some laws are better than others or maybe just written better. Bad laws, opinions and executive actions are going to be more scrutinized and end up in the courts. Some make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Even there, they don't all agree.

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States."

Best that I direct you to an official document from the US Supreme Court. The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

 

[Shootnlead]

Yep, in a perfect world. Fact is, some laws are better than others or maybe just written better. Bad laws, opinions and executive actions are going to be more scrutinized and end up in the courts. Some make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Even there, they don't all agree.

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States."

Best that I direct you to an official document from the US Supreme Court. The Court and Constitutional Interpretation


https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Not following this reply.

I have no idea what you are saying, with is.

 

[sethrus]

What pisses me off is the snowflake argument "I have a 1st Amendment right to...." Well they don't in a bar, in a store, in my face, etc. I tell them to read the frikkin thing, then shut up!
It only says, '...the government shall not infringe....'
All else is fair game! Like the FEDEX driver that stopped the burning.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

 

[dangerranger]

Here I think I can help you out...

Every good man and woman should stand firmly behind the second , but it's only the lying weasels that hide behind the 5th!

If that is the reference you were looking for I don't think it will hold water. It's only one small provision in a broad right. I'm sure if you thought about it you could come up with a legal use for the second that would turn the stomach of 2A supporters too! DR

 

[Bad Bob]

I understand they serve different purposes...

My question was is it more acceptable to use one than the other, for it's intended purpose.

The reason I ask this is that gun folks never question someone's use of the 2nd Amendment, but frequently disparage those that use the 5th Amendment. Seems to be very hypocritical, to me.

I disparage public servant that hide behind the 5th for something they did as a public official.

 

[Havok]

Rights are rights. It is always acceptable to exercise your rights. Some people are for or against certain rights based on what fits their agenda.