Amendment Rights

Newch91

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?

Horos

Newch91 wrote:

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?

It's the only even slightly rational argument they can make.

dimitrispearljam

good question...

aerial

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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!

Bentleyspop

aerial wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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:

Zoso

aerial wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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!

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

aerial wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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!

You talk about personal responsibility... but you blame the government for nearly everything.

Bentleyspop

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

aerial wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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!

You talk about personal responsibility... but you blame the government for nearly everything.

aerial

Bentleyspop wrote:

aerial wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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:

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"

JimmyV

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You talk about personal responsibility... but you blame the government for nearly everything.

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.

dimitrispearljam

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You talk about personal responsibility... but you blame the government for nearly everything.

Bingo,Bazinga,Woot!!

MotoDC

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

aerial wrote:

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!

You talk about personal responsibility... but you blame the government for nearly everything.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but since at least three people have quoted it in glee (or Big Bang, as the case may be -- bazinga), I suppose I will.

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

MotoDC wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

aerial wrote:

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!

You talk about personal responsibility... but you blame the government for nearly everything.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but since at least three people have quoted it in glee (or Big Bang, as the case may be -- bazinga), I suppose I will.

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.

know1

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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".

JimmyV

know1 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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".

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.

aerial

know1 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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".

People can still defend their selves when they come knocking on the door when/if they come to confiscate your arms.

JonnyPistachio

aerial wrote:

know1 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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".

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.

MotoDC

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You talk about personal responsibility... but you blame the government for nearly everything.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but since at least three people have quoted it in glee (or Big Bang, as the case may be -- bazinga), I suppose I will.

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.

Says the guy who doesn't feel this way to the guy who does. Whether it's likely or not (both being just our opinions), it doesn't change the argument I just made. Gov't is very involved in and controls lots of things, therefore the scope of things for which I and my fellow citizens can take personal responsibility is diminished. Having a problem with that and contending that that very involvement is (at least) part of the problem is not logically inconsistent. If you want to claim that our example personal-responsibility touter is saying that the gov't is the ENTIRE problem, then maybe you've got something.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

MotoDC wrote:

Says the guy who doesn't feel this way to the guy who does. Whether it's likely or not (both being just our opinions), it doesn't change the argument I just made. Gov't is very involved in and controls lots of things, therefore the scope of things for which I and my fellow citizens can take personal responsibility is diminished. Having a problem with that and contending that that very involvement is (at least) part of the problem is not logically inconsistent. If you want to claim that our example personal-responsibility touter is saying that the gov't is the ENTIRE problem, then maybe you've got something.

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.

aerial

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Says the guy who doesn't feel this way to the guy who does. Whether it's likely or not (both being just our opinions), it doesn't change the argument I just made. Gov't is very involved in and controls lots of things, therefore the scope of things for which I and my fellow citizens can take personal responsibility is diminished. Having a problem with that and contending that that very involvement is (at least) part of the problem is not logically inconsistent. If you want to claim that our example personal-responsibility touter is saying that the gov't is the ENTIRE problem, then maybe you've got something.

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.

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.......

Bentleyspop

aerial wrote:

know1 wrote:

Newch91 wrote:

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?

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".

:fp:
People can still defend their selves when they come knocking on the door when/if they come to confiscate your arms.