Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by stycotl And I simply worry about everyone with a gun.
If you don't have a gun you won't increase the chances of people doing something stupid with it.
The more people carry guns, the more the chance that someone will do something stupid increases.
The fact that people act emotionally while believing that they act rationally.
Whether panic and fear is subjective or not is irrelevant because they are real to the individual who experiences them.
The trick is to acknowledge that you are panicking or acting out of fear.
Most people are either too macho or too twitchy to use a gun responsibly.
I guess the big difference between you and me is that you believe to be (completely?) defenceless without a gun.
b&e = breaking & entering.
The only way you can stop crime (or at least contain it) is by making sure nobody lives under the poverty line and make sure that everyone will get social security.
And when people are intend on using drugs you either give them methadone or make sure they od.
Crack heads will only drag down society.
Most (poor) people who are career criminals (with the exception of white collar criminals and adrenaline junkies) commit crime because they see it as a necessary evil.
Nope, because you Americans already have the death penalty and guns are already easily available but you still have lotsa violent gun crimes.
Attack the cause (poverty) and not the symptom (crime).
Are you serious?
If there's a country that is too soft on criminals it would be The Netherlands and yet we have no drive-by shootings or student shootings.
A starving man would rather commit a crime than starve to death.
Besidez, American society is completely f*cked up if people actually believe that they cannot survive without being part of a gang. Unfortunately this is the case for your American people who live in ghettos and your prison population.
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte So far it works fine in The Netherlands.
We still have crime, but no drive-by shootings or student shootings like in the US or other countries where guns are readily available.
In short: Crime is not an individual problem but a problem with society.
guns were banned in australia
crime went up not down.
Can you yell anything you want? "Fire" in a crowded theater? "I'm going to blow up XYZ" to anyone? Freedom of speech is limited from clear and present danger, fighting words, and obscenity...and I don't see anyone fighting that. Education for Freedom Lesson 4
Then compromise on 1 right/amendment mean any different things then compromise on others? No compromise on the 2nd amendment but compromise on others (as the supreme court has ruled)? Why is it okay to compromise on others but not on this?
do you know where the term "yelling fire in a theater" came from? read up on the Schenck vs. United States. It is NOT illegal to yell fire in a theater, it was used as an example. In any case, I do think you have to look at the exact wording of the constitution. While I do think it unconstitutional for the government to go after someone for saying things such as this, I do not think it is unconstitutional for the theater owner or family members of those hurt to go after the person yelling "fire" in a theater. The constitution protects us from the government by placing restrictions on what the government can do. The case was brought up in front of hate supreme court during WWI where we had thousands of "political prisoners" for speaking against our involvement in WWI. It was unconstitutional for ANYONE to be arrested for speaking out against the actions of our government. If someone said that they were going to bomb something, yes the government should look into it, but if they are found to NOT be planning anything of the sort, they would be immediately cleared of any wrong doing. Because you say something does not create a criminal, the actions afterwords are what create the criminal.
"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."
"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"
I see nothing about registration within the words above. I do however in both first and second amendment see the simple words that limit what a government CAN do, which is NOTHING.
"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."
Yes you can get arrested for what you say Student Arrested As “Terrorist†For Writing About Zombies // Current (http://current.com/items/89452189/student_arrested_as_terrorist_for_writing_about_zo mbies.htm - broken link) (writing about immanent threats, faces multiple felony counts)...plotting terrorist threat verbally, no weapons found or activities done (FBI arrests 7 in alleged terror plot - Security- msnbc.com terrorist activity (LEX18 - Lexington, KY - News, Weather, Sports - Our Apologies (http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989614)....saying - broken link) the f bomb to a cop (http://www.justanswer.com/questions/1bn55-someone-arrested-saying-f-word)...offensive (broken link) anonymous posting on blogs (Trolls Take Note: Teacher Arrested For Leaving Offensive Anonymous Comment On Blog).
Seems to me speech is pretty regulated. Can't say I want people doing any of that, and there is much worse things to find....but it's still being prosecuted for just saying things.
Yes you can get arrested for what you say Student Arrested As “Terroristâ€Â For Writing About Zombies // Current (http://current.com/items/89452189/student_arrested_as_terrorist_for_writing_about_zo mbies.htm - broken link) (writing about immanent threats, faces multiple felony counts)...plotting terrorist threat verbally, no weapons found or activities done (FBI arrests 7 in alleged terror plot - Security- msnbc.com terrorist activity (LEX18 - Lexington, KY - News, Weather, Sports - Our Apologies (http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989614)....saying - broken link) the f bomb to a cop (http://www.justanswer.com/questions/1bn55-someone-arrested-saying-f-word)...offensive (broken link) anonymous posting on blogs (Trolls Take Note: Teacher Arrested For Leaving Offensive Anonymous Comment On Blog).
Seems to me speech is pretty regulated. Can't say I want people doing any of that, and there is much worse things to find....but it's still being prosecuted for just saying things.
just because the government did this does not mean it is constitutional.
The terrorist case for a zombie story is just plain idiotic on the part of the government, and I can bet that the ACLU, or other laywers will take the case to the supreme court if needed.
As to the second link you provided
"Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates also have criticized the Liberty City Seven case. In general, the material support provision – conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization – has been widely challenged by lawyers and several courts have found portions of it unconstitutional. " The Raw Story | Methods questioned in investigation leading up to Sears Tower arrests
the ACLU is already all over that case. There is no followup storys on the links you provided.
your link for cussing at an officer does not link to a story at this time. Depending on what the suspect was doing, he was probably charged with obstruction of justice, by interfering with a case.
your last link as well has the ACLU all over it stating
"The ACLU and others are arguing that the comments are in poor taste, but do not constitute a threat and are therefore covered under the First Amendment."
just because the government arrests people for this, does not make it constitutional. If any of these cases make it up to the supreme court, my best guess is that they would be deemed unconstitutional. The amendments of our constitution are VERY clear in what they say, and what they limit our government to.
Can you yell anything you want? "Fire" in a crowded theater? "I'm going to blow up XYZ" to anyone? Freedom of speech is limited from clear and present danger, fighting words, and obscenity...and I don't see anyone fighting that. Education for Freedom Lesson 4
Then compromise on 1 right/amendment mean any different things then compromise on others? No compromise on the 2nd amendment but compromise on others (as the supreme court has ruled)? Why is it okay to compromise on others but not on this?
Yes, you can get in trouble for useing speech in stupid ways.
How is that the same?
If anything your example reinforces our position that gun control is largely unconstitutional because it restricts a right BEFORE its been abused.
In order for your example to be meaningful the fear of folks yelling fire would have to drive us to mouth registration & speech permits.
Instead we prosecute people AFTER they cause harm by abusing speech. As we should. Likewise we should not persecute all gun owners because of what they can do. We should prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime or cause harm, not before & its totally wrong to toss out the presumption of innocence which is also guaranteed by the constitution.
Yes, you can get in trouble for useing speech in stupid ways.
How is that the same?
If anything your example reinforces our position that gun control is largely unconstitutional because it restricts a right BEFORE its been abused.
In order for your example to be meaningful the fear of folks yelling fire would have to drive us to mouth registration & speech permits.
Instead we prosecute people AFTER they cause harm by abusing speech. As we should. Likewise we should not persecute all gun owners because of what they can do. We should prosecute people AFTER they commit a crime or cause harm, not before & its totally wrong to toss out the presumption of innocence which is also guaranteed by the constitution.
The point was to say that the precedent has been set to limit other amendments to the constitution due to the majorities view of public safety. One can't really say that you can never restrict part of the amendments because it has been done...the decisions get challenged a good deal, and who knows if they will stand.
Each instance provided no one had caused any action to harm another person, or incited another person to cause harm. If the people had the means to commit what they said, it's much different...but each was arrested for what they had said.
Guns are a unique good in that their intention and primary purpose is to cause severe damage or loss of life (animal, human, computer...). How well or bad they are used is entirely up to the wielder. There are other weapons that do the same, but no where near as efficiently and with such tremendous force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma
just because the government did this does not mean it is constitutional.
The terrorist case for a zombie story is just plain idiotic on the part of the government, and I can bet that the ACLU, or other laywers will take the case to the supreme court if needed.
just because the government arrests people for this, does not make it constitutional. If any of these cases make it up to the supreme court, my best guess is that they would be deemed unconstitutional. The amendments of our constitution are VERY clear in what they say, and what they limit our government to.
Very true, but it happens an awful lot. Usually supreme court challenges take years, sometimes over a decade...probably long after the person is let out of jail and has the felony counts on their record, the damage has been done
I doubt the silly ones will past muster, but the terrorist and threat (especially school shooting threats) suits will have a good fight at least.
Currently another challenge to the first amendment of freedom of religion (MSN this morning Child deaths test faith-healing exemptions - Kids and parenting- msnbc.com) where the freedom to follow their beliefs is causing the deaths of their children...because they beleive in faith healing. It's been upheald at the moment due to the first amendment, but is this something where restrictions are not appropreate?
The point was to say that the precedent has been set to limit other amendments to the constitution due to the majorities view of public safety. One can't really say that you can never restrict part of the amendments because it has been done...the decisions get challenged a good deal, and who knows if they will stand.
Again, theres a huge difference between a restriction that says "dont do this" and arresting someone after they do it than there is to say "before you can excercise your rights you MUST do this"
I understand what you say about other rights being restricted, but none, other than RKBA has legislation constituting prior restraint. All the other restrictions on any right deal with prosecution after you abuse it.
The only one that comes close is requiring registering to vote. But there no qualifier other than proving you are a citizen. I'd be fine with a law that mandated you needed to prove citizenship before buying a gun, as long as thats all that was needed.
Quote:
Each instance provided no one had caused any action to harm another person, or incited another person to cause harm. If the people had the means to commit what they said, it's much different...but each was arrested for what they had said.
Yes, after they said it. Just like if you shoot a gun irresponsibly you will get arrested. Yet nobody is lobbying for mouth control, registration, permits, or out right bans. Thats the difference.
The problem is that making something illegal doesn't mean it will not happen. But thats all we can morally do. Theres nothing moral, ethical, fair or just about limiting a right before a person abuses it.
Quote:
Guns are a unique good in that their intention and primary purpose is to cause severe damage or loss of life (animal, human, computer...). How well or bad they are used is entirely up to the wielder. There are other weapons that do the same, but no where near as efficiently and with such tremendous force.
Not sure what this is suposed to mean. I'm well aware of the potential for guns to be used for wrong.
As you said, how good or bad they are used is up to the user. If he never causes harm let him be, wether he has a 22 or an uzi. If he causes harm arrest him just like any other person who caused harm.
Guns are a unique good in that their intention and primary purpose is to cause severe damage or loss of life (animal, human, computer...). How well or bad they are used is entirely up to the wielder. There are other weapons that do the same, but no where near as efficiently and with such tremendous force.
is the original intention of the inventor the deciding factor in what can stay and what needs to go?
if it isn't, then why are we arguing this point?
if it is, then we need to break that down amongst pretty much all of the rest of technology. i would bet that you would be surprised to see how much of our scientific and technical breakthroughs have come through warfare and military purposes.
but many of those things aren't used for warfare or violence, you might argue. true. what about those of us that don't use our weapons for violence? i don't even hunt with mine. are we going back to its supposed intended purpose?
what about the fact that my rifle is a precision instrument that was put together for tournament shooting? its purpose was not as a weapon of violence, but as a competition shooter.
can it still be used for violence? of course. but so can my compound bow. so can my fly rod if i really want to make a point.
and as we all know, thanks to the thousands of violent crimes committed with knives, hammers, nail guns, pillows, and ground glass, so can anything else.
as for the claim of nothing else being as efficient and tremendously forceful as a firearm, i would disagree. if i wanted to really make sure someone was dead, and wanted to cause as much trauma as possible, i would run them over in a large truck at high speed.
want to talk about the logistics of tremendous force as compared between the two? as a visual aid, imagine the gun scenario, where you have to clean the blood from the pavement, and possibly remove the biological matter from an exit wound in a *single* ziplock bag, as opposed to the vehicular violence scenario where there is no blood left in the victim (it is all on the pavement), and the vic himself is taken to the morgue in a collection of ziplock bags.
which one sounds worse to you (assuming for the sake of argument that one kind of dead trumps another kind of dead)?
ah, yes, the automobile's inherent design is not to cause violence. somehow that makes it excusable...
guns were banned in australia
crime went up not down.
You are aware that Australia has been a former penal colony, right?
Quote:
The British Empire used its colonies in North America as such for more than 150 years and parts of Australia for a further 75 years.
Source: Penal colony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maybe bein' a former penal colony explains why the citizens of America and Australia are in favour of gun rights.
Quote:
well said, avoidance does not in fact resolve all issues.
Pacifism, just like using violence, is a conscious choice, so calling it avoidance is sheer stupidity. A pacifist uses more intelligence than someone who resorts to violence, they usually only act on instinct.
Besidez, it is easier to hit someone than to be hit. And taking a hit takes more courage than pummeling your opponent into submission.
Last edited by Tricky D; 11-24-2008 at 03:42 AM..
Reason: clarification
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 You are aware that Australia has been a former penal colony, right? Maybe bein' a former penal colony explains why the citizens of America and Australia are in favour of gun rights.
Maybe living in a monarchy is why you are clueless about liberty, freedom & individual responsibility. After all, you have a king to decide things for you.
Quote:
Pacifism, just like using violence, is a conscious choice, so calling it avoidance is sheer stupidity.
Avoidance is a conscious choice, saying it & pacifism are not the same is to display a lack of common sense.
Quote:
A pacifist uses more intelligence than someone who resorts to violence, they usually only act on instinct.
off topic balderdash.
Quote:
Besidez, it is easier to hit someone than to be hit.] And taking a hit takes more courage than pummeling your opponent into submission.
More balderdash.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I simply worry about everyone with a gun.
The fact that people act emotionally while believing that they act rationally.
Whether panic and fear is subjective or not is irrelevant because they are real to the individual who experiences them.
Are you serious?
Unfortunately this is the case for your American people who live in ghettos and your prison population.
So far it works fine in The Netherlands.
You are aware that Australia has been a former penal colony, right?
Maybe bein' a former penal colony explains why the citizens of America and Australia are in favour of gun rights.
