Amendment Rights
Newch91
Posts: 17,560
I've been wondering about this for a while since all shootings in 2012 regarding gun control:
if we can accept limited First Amendment Free Speech rights (i.e. can't say "fire" in a crowded theater, can't say "bomb" on an airplane) but when talks of gun control come about, why are people so quick to defend the Second Amendment?
if we can accept limited First Amendment Free Speech rights (i.e. can't say "fire" in a crowded theater, can't say "bomb" on an airplane) but when talks of gun control come about, why are people so quick to defend the Second Amendment?
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Because this administration and just about everyone in Washington lies and cannot be trusted. This administration uses trickery and is not transparent. Examples...Bengazi, fast and furious,
Naming numerous Communists/Socialists/Progressives to his various Czar positions and then watching them scurry for cover when Beck begins to call them out, forcing them to resign.
Obama using phony Social Security number.......the list goes on...and this is just the President!
and the Cheney/Rove govt were all a bunch of honest angels :fp:
did you trust bush? nixon? surely not..... how has things changed... conseravtives loved to defend george bush's wiring taping, freedom's taken away after 9/11... why is it different now.. oh I see it has to do with guns.
america went to war after 9/11 but did shit all after 20 kids were shot in a school... amazing.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
You talk about personal responsibility... but you blame the government for nearly everything.
No they were not. I said all those in Washington. There are many that have been their for to long. I am beginning to feel all that run for office are dishonest....it's the " Liars Club"
Bullseye!
I think it has to do with the 2nd Amendment being the only one that deals with the right to physically possess items (arms). Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., these are all abstract concepts. You can buy, possess, own, and shoot a gun. If the government bans that gun it can be physically taken away from you. I think it has just as much to do with possessions as it does with rights.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Bingo,Bazinga,Woot!!
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
The disconnect between your argument here and the actual thought process behind the small-gov't, personal responsibility folks is that the gov't blame stems from the very notion that they ARE involved in everything. It's that very involvement/control that leads to the argument of people not having to take as much responsibility for themselves. So yes, as long as the gov't continues to (over)reach its tentacles, it will share at least some of the "blame"; with that in mind, I therefore believe that complaining about such does not present a logical inconsistency for personal-responsibility types. If the gov't was less involved, small gov't people would be more satisfied and would blame them less. Theoretically anyhow. Can't speak for everyone.
not likely.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The SPIRIT of the 2nd Amendment ended a long time ago. Unless the government lets us have missiles and bombs, we can't defend ourselves from it using handguns.
Also, the wording of the Constitution doesn't even say "guns". It says "arms".
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And even when it was written, no one would have been allowed to set up a cannon in their backyard. Even then there were limits.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
People can still defend their selves when they come knocking on the door when/if they come to confiscate your arms.
I'd love to hear a detailed account of how this scenario will go down. So the person "knocking on the door" is aware you have firearms. Do you shoot them? Threaten them with your AR-15? When you threaten them, do they say, "oh, sorry, maybe we'll come back later when you're in a better mood."
just wondering.
sure it does. Just because the government regulates something, you are still free to do that outside the confines of that regulation. living within the confines of society's laws is still personal responsibility. you'll just be punished for it if you're caught.
my point was, responding to the portion I underlined, is that people, like aerial, who constantly complain about the government and all the conspiracy theories, will never stop bitching until there is no more government. and THEN they'll complain about the services the government used to provide but no longer do.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
One example .....In NY you cannot buy a super sized soft drink....though it should be a freedom.....there are more serious ones (to busy to list them all right now).....government spends time on so much wasteful shit it's not funny anymore......will get back to ya
Don't tell me what kind of arm I can own when it is my 2nd amendment right........stop trashing the Constitution......people died for this so that Americans will not have to deal with tyranny........SIMPLE as that.......
I know. And again, that's no more than your opinion/assumption about aerial and "people like him (her?)". It's neither argument nor fact.
But they don't need to. They can just wipe you out with a missile or bomb.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
wrong. I have never bashed your constitution. I understand the necessity for it and its amendments. I criticize how people of today bastardize its meaning to justify their own desires and/or paranoia.
yes, I suppose it should be every american's right to get as fat as they want to be. just go down to disneyland, you'll see the many people exercise that right quite well. most people are too fat to walk, they blast around on golf carts.
what is your take on marriage equality? should the government keep out of that too and just let everyone get married who wants to?
yeah, that's what I thought.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Free Speech is limited by the imminent threat/clear and present danger test. Yelling fire and inciting a riot creates an imminent threat. The act of owning a gun for whatever reason does not automatically make that gun an imminent threat. Limiting gun ownership because a ridiculously small percentage are used in crimes more than we already do seems to push the envelope on this. I am sure the new gun control laws, whatever they end up being, will have to pass the same constitutionality test. More strict regulations on who can own a gun, what types of guns can be owned, etc will all have to pass this test.
The court will probably decide that banning certain weapons is constitutional in that some weapons pose more of an imminent threat than others. It is the same reasoning that background checks have been instituted to make sure that the person purchasing the weapon does not pose an imminent threat to the public at large. That isn't a perfect system, but I am sure the waiting period has cooled some folks off.
So guns are in fact limited in the same way speech is limited, a better analogy making it closer to what moving past the level of imminent threat test would be banning the use of the word "bomb" everywhere because it violates the threat test on some occasions. The second amendment is limited now, the level of limitations on it are pretty consistent with other limits on other rights in the constitution. So instead of creating new laws, better enforcement and changing definitions in old laws might prove to be more effective.
I don't like the idea of crazy people owning weapons any more than the next person, but I like the idea of criminals, more than that, the criminally insane being the only people owning guns outside of law enforcement a lot less. I have said it before, but freedom is inherently dangerous, I just would rather take my chances with it than give it up and live without it and be slightly less in danger. I know that over simplifies things, but I don't know a better way to say it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
your claim that people like aerial would stop complaining if you had smaller government is also neither argument nor fact. can we get off that part?
what do you suggest happens when it has been proven over history that the general populace cannot be trusted to their own judgment when it comes to personal responsibility and the safety of others or themselves?
the housing crisis was but one, albeit a major one, example of how people can't fucking take care of themselves. it needed to be regulated to save people from themselves.
that's why we have speed limits, hard drug prohibition, and even fucking disclaimers on commercials saying "professional driver, closed course, do not attempt". Has it gotten out of control? ABSOLUTELY. why? because the general populace has made it that way and forced the government's and law maker's hands.
do you think the government WANTS to hold our hands? I don't think so. you don't think they have better things to do then tell you not to drive 180 mph through a school zone? isn't that common sense? of course it is. but a lot of people don't use theirs.
I'm pretty sure the original intent of formalized government was NOT to tell its contituents what to do/not do.
the constituents gave them no choice.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
There are those in government who want nothing more than to hold individuals hands throughout life. If, by some act of god, the government was able to control every aspect of life that we know, there would be those with in it trying to figure out some new aspect of life, if only to control it. No government in the history of the world has said, "there, we have done enough, now lets stop passing laws and start just enforcing the ones we have". So to say that no one in government wants to hold hands is a bit silly, some absolutely want to hold your hand, and guide you to act the way THEY think is appropriate and using force (laws and law enforcement) to get there.
Just a quick note, the people in government are the same that make up the general populace. They are not better, they are not smarter, and they are most definitely not infallible. The idea that people need a formal government to save them from themselves is just a giant philosophical difference that you and I have...I understand where you are coming from in thinking that laws must be had in order for their to be some sort of existence, but I would argue that societies existed just fine without a government in the same sense that we know today...
As to the second part, most governments prior to the idea of our republic, operated on the idea that the government's role was to tell you how to live and act. That government granted rights to the people. That is what made our constitution such a change from the norm, we formed a government based on the idea that the people tell the gov't what it is ALLOWED to do. Not that the government gets to control every aspect of your life, but rather that there are certain rights that all people have inherent to the definition of being human. And the natural tendency for people to have governments that tell them what to do in every aspect of their lives is constantly at odds with the idea of that inherent freedom on which our country was founded...It is and will always be a fantastic, never-ending dance.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It's interesting that where you say "the general populace", I would probably replace with "a very publicized minority of nutjobs", which to me is a quite different analysis.
I'm not advocating anarchy. Examples like speed limits, DUI enforcement, hard drug prohibition are more defensible because they are mainly in place to protect us from each other. Protecting us from ourselves is where I believe the gov't starts to go off its tracks. If you accept that, then it becomes a question of defining which activities impact others and which only impact ourselves. It's an admittedly gray and inexact analysis, but an important one. Drugs are a good example and one that we've gone 'round and 'round about here on AMT. Before you launch in, I recognize that this means that firearm ownership would need to pass this same moral test were we to accept the test as a requisite one. That's nothing new, really, it's at the center of most of the debate here; namely, whether my right to defend myself against oppression (foreign, domestic, federal, etc) trumps the right to be supposedly protected from one-off nutjobs using my mode of self-defense to commit their heinous acts. Of course that presumes that restricting legal firearm ownership (or banning it, depending on your preferred flavor) would actually protect anyone from said nutjobs -- yet another open topic of debate here and elsewhere.
As for your statement about the "original intent of formalized gov't", as least with respect to that of the United States, I couldn't have said it better myself. But as so many in the anti-gun camp would say, what does that have to do with the reality we face today?
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... mcchrystal
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful