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.
While ideally we would never have to prioritize the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a real world, and sometimes we have to make difficult choices. I don't think it's a double standard when those choices have to be made. I think it's a matter of values and priorities.
Free Speech tends to always be my highest priority, because I value it more than all the other rights.
While ideally we would never have to prioritize the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a real world, and sometimes we have to make difficult choices. I don't think it's a double standard when those choices have to be made. I think it's a matter of values and priorities.
Free Speech tends to always be my highest priority, because I value it more than all the other rights.
I agree. Free speech is the highest priority. And being able to discuss our rights and what are reasonable restrictions to those rights is also a high priority.
LOL, nice talking with ya..... If you ever want to have a fact based discussion about this issue, I'll be here.
I have been following this debate and actually, I think she did lots more than "tried". In fact, I think her arguments are very sound and very persuasive. It is YOUR arguments (if they can be so called) that are rather spurious and sound like NRA talking points. Nor do you ever actually confront her arguments. Rather, you merely dismiss them out of hand, which is a debate tactic used by those who have no arguments of their own. I could go on, but you just aren't worth my time
Rather, you merely dismiss them out of hand, which is a debate tactic used by those who have no arguments of their own. I could go on, but you just aren't worth my time
I love this forum, it provides endless entertainment, like this.
In fact, I think her arguments are very sound and very persuasive.
They are not based on substantive facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Carlos
It is YOUR arguments (if they can be so called) that are rather spurious and sound like NRA talking points.
His/her arguments are fine, even I don't necessarily agree with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
My whole post was a response to the idea of a society without any gun regulation or restriction whatsoever. It is to refute the constitutional absolutists who say any restriction of any sort, on any individual is counter to the second amendment.
Okay.
I'm a bona fide Constitutional Absolutist, and I can tell you that is an incorrect reading of the language.
It is clear that the federal government shall play no role. The 2nd Amendment is solely applicable to the States and the People. Part of the logic is to bar the federal government and other States from coercing a State or the People of a State into a particular course of action.
It is equally clear that the 2nd Amendment is in the context of Militia.
I had to relieve soldiers of duty --on and off the battlefield -- because they were incompetent, or because they were a threat to themselves or others.
Anyone remember Pat Tillman?
As I've said before, there are one of two possibilities: he was a loose cannon, unfit for combat and it was impracticable to relive him of duty (or perhaps command was afraid due to his being an NFL star), so one of his own tattooed him to prevent the mission from being jeopardized and/or troops dying...
...another troop who was incompetent and should have been relieved of duty -- but wasn't -- shot him in a panic.
If I could see photos of his body, I could tell you exactly which scenario went down.
Anyway, the point is that the village idiot never got armed.
There's a presumption of competence with the 2nd Amendment, that one is fit to bear arms.
As I pointed out, as a Constitutional Absolutist, the Constitution has a method of resolution: one denied the "right" to bear arms may invoke their 1st Amendment Right to redress the government for grievance; the State is required to give Due Process under the 5th Amendment; and the burden of proof is upon the State to show that the person is incompetent in a neutral forum.
And as I said, if the State fails, so it goes, but if the State proves its claim, then asta-i viata.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
We can't discuss "reasonable" restrictions without first deciding what that term means. It's too subjective.
Sure. "Reasonable" needs to be defined objectively in no uncertain terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen811
yelling fire in a theater is NOT constitutional.
That is private speech not protected by the 1st Amendment. Only political speech is protected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gen811
...meaning PRESIDENTS cannot just tell us lies and put our lives in danger
sorry but people cannot do that and have others die on their comments.
Of course presidents can lie. Presidents are not obligated to reveal classified information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
It doesn't say firearms either.
Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV
Yes, the National Guard does constitutes our "well regulated militia" and that is how I interrupt the Second Amendment. Clearly, the clowns in Clark Country, NV and their ilk do not constitute a "well regulated militia."
They don't have to constitute a "well-regulated militia."
Your interpretation is wrong because it is not based on the reality and fact that there are three parties to the US Constitution: the People, the States, and the federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV
It is also clear that the Founding Fathers never intended the Second Amendment to be a vehicle for the overthrow of the government they worked so hard to establish.
Um, the government they worked so hard to establish died about 150+ years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV
If people don't have unfettered access to guns, how do you explain the fact that so many guns get into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them?
It's called "illegal activity" specifically to wit: gun-running.
Weapons are smuggled into the united States in the same way that drugs and Versace-knock-offs are smuggled in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV
I may not have the knowledge of firearms but I live in this country that has had 11,419 people killed by firearms in 2013.
Thanks for proving it's an imperfect world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV
I have the RIGHT to want to make our society safer and I certainly don't think that making it safer means adding more firearms. I have expressed my opinion and as far as having an "intelligent conversation," you have done nothing but insult me. I don't have to be a nuclear engineer to know that I want nuclear power plants regulated!
Actually, no. The 1st Amendment only protects political speech. It does not protect private speech.
And while people do not need to be nuclear engineers, they need to be drawing conclusions from facts instead of bigoted ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Looks like nobody wants to talk about this, even though it's the topic of the thread.
Um, people ignored because it is silly and fallacious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
To put restrictions on the 1st amendment that are the equivalent of those commonly put illegally on the 2nd:
1.) Government would have to restrict the ownership of pens, paper, computers, printers, and printing presses to people it has examined and found they have not said anything it considers unacceptable, at any time in their past lives.
2.) People who want to publish a political tract, would have to wait a week, ten days, or possibly a month after the last time they published one.
3.) Posting a message on the Internet, which can cause the message to be reproduced dozens of times (or more) simultaneously on many people's systems, would be prohibited by the government, except for people who have submitted multiple copies of their fingerprints to law enforcement, gotten vouchers of their character from local law enforcement agencies, and have paid the government $200 for every such message they post.
If you try to make a point about something by comparison, and if you do so by comparing it with the wrong thing, then your reasoning uses the fallacy of faulty comparison or the fallacy of questionable analogy.
To the best of my knowledge the pamphlets published by Thomas Paine did not kill anyone.
The federal government is barred from making any laws pertaining to weapons, but the States are not, provided the States follow the Constitution.
And if the State says a convicted felon is incompetent to bear arms, then that is just too damn bad.
Constitutionally...
To the best of my knowledge the pamphlets published by Thomas Paine did not kill anyone.
If they had, would that change what the Constitution says about Freedom of Speech and of the press?
Quote:
The federal government is barred from making any laws pertaining to weapons, but the States are not,
The states are equally barred, and always have been since the BOR was ratified.
Quote:
provided the States follow the Constitution.
Would that be the Constitution that says that since X is true, the RPKBA shall not be infringed... without making any distinction between Fed govt and state govt? That Constitution?
The 2nd amendment bars all governments - Federal, state, or local - from infringing the people's right to keep and bear arms. If you can find any language anywhere in the Constitution that says otherwise, I'd be happy to hear about it.
States (and the Fed) can violate that ban, and often do. But don't mistake that for the ban not being there.
They don't have to constitute a "well-regulated militia."
Your interpretation is wrong because it is not based on the reality and fact that there are three parties to the US Constitution: the People, the States, and the federal government.
My interpretation is based on the words in the Second Amendment & of the history of the country when the Constitution was written.
Quote:
Um, the government they worked so hard to establish died about 150+ years.
Talk about not based in reality. This nation is still governed pretty much the same way it was back in 1789. We still have 3 branches of government that are laid out in the Constitution.
Quote:
It's called "illegal activity" specifically to wit: gun-running.
Weapons are smuggled into the united States in the same way that drugs and Versace-knock-offs are smuggled in.
Thanks for proving it's an imperfect world.
You are right that it is illegal activity. However, the powers that be do not want tighten security so these illegal activities will diminish.
Yes, it is an imperfect world when people can just dismiss the fact that many people-including children die needlessly by the hands of people who should not have access to guns.
Quote:
Actually, no. The 1st Amendment only protects political speech. It does not protect private speech.
And while people do not need to be nuclear engineers, they need to be drawing conclusions from facts instead of bigoted ideas.
Mircea
Since when has the First Amendment only protected political speech? Have you ever heard of Larry Flynt? In case you are not familiar with the case, Jerry Falwell took Hustler Magazine to court. The court ruling:
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions."
It has NOTHING to do with political speech. It was about obscenity.
I draw my conclusions from facts. I see the statistics. You seem to just want to dismiss the statistics because it is an imperfect world.
My argument from the beginning has been that I am NOT against gun ownership and I certainly am not advocating gun prohibition. I simply want gun CONTROL!!! Meaning, I want universal background checks. I know people are going to say that we already have that. Right now, there are 33 states that do not require background checks for sales at gun shows. Also, many private sales do not require background checks. I want the gun industry and gun distribution REGULATED!!!! So we don't have to experience another Newtown.
We live in a real world, and sometimes we have to make difficult choices.
And when the choice a politician has to make, is to take himself completely out of the decision, since according to the Constitution he is forbidden to do anything in a certain field (like gun control or speech)....
....then it becomes a VERY difficult decision for that politician.
The fact that he has only one legal way to decide, does not guarantee that he will decide that way, though. And that's what makes the decision so "difficult" for him.
I have been following this debate and actually, I think she did lots more than "tried". In fact, I think her arguments are very sound and very persuasive. It is YOUR arguments (if they can be so called) that are rather spurious and sound like NRA talking points. Nor do you ever actually confront her arguments. Rather, you merely dismiss them out of hand, which is a debate tactic used by those who have no arguments of their own. I could go on, but you just aren't worth my time
Sometimes a picture says more than words ever could....
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.
