Regulate & restrict Freedom of Speech/Right to Bear Arms

[Thunder]

Some argue that since the 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, we should have NO laws regulating which guns we can own, how many we can own, and where we can use them.

But the Amendment to the Constitution right before it, says that govt. can't abridge Freedom of Speech, and yet we have all sorts of laws that limit what we can say, where we can say it, and how we can say it.

Do the folks who want a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment want people to be able to threaten the life of the President or other public officials? Should we have the right to publicly declare our support for enemies of the USA and swear to fight with them? Should we have the right to yell "fire!!" in a crowded theatre when we know there is a fire, to hopefully cause stampede & mass injuries/deaths?

In a perfect world, yes....we should enforce the 1st & 2nd Amendnents as written. Cause in that perfect world, crime is non-existent & everybody is loving & honest. But we don't live in that perfect world.

Clearly, we must have some reasonable & common sense regulations upon free speech and firearms owneship.

The only question is: what are those common-sense & reasonable regulations?

I guess the best answer is: the minimal needed to insure maximum exercising of these rights while also intelligently & wisely protecting the common good.

 

[Harshaw]

"Common-sense" as used in this context is never either. It's usually just a way to reject anything you don't want to hear.

 

[Thunder]

"Common-sense" as used in this context is never either. It's usually just a way to reject anything you don't want to hear.

so you think there should be no regulations or restriction on what folks can say and print?

its ALL good? its ALL acceptable?

 

[TurtleDude]

1) congress was never given the power to regulate small arms

2) pretending that the commerce clause did is idiotic

even worse FDR's pet monkeys bought that crap

 

[Thunder]

1) congress was never given the power to regulate small arms

2) pretending that the commerce clause did is idiotic

even worse FDR's pet monkeys bought that crap

you didn't answer the question.

do you REALLY believe that both Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms, should not be infringed at all?

we should be able to say & print ANYTHING we want?

 

[TheLastIndependent]

Some argue that since the 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, we should have NO laws regulating which guns we can own, how many we can own, and where we can use them.

But the Amendment to the Constitution right before it, says that govt. can't abridge Freedom of Speech, and yet we have all sorts of laws that limit what we can say, where we can say it, and how we can say it.

Do the folks who want a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment want people to be able to threaten the life of the President or other public officials? Should we have the right to publicly declare our support for enemies of the USA and swear to fight with them? Should we have the right to yell "fire!!" in a crowded theatre when we know there is a fire, to hopefully cause stampede & mass injuries/deaths?

In a perfect world, yes....we should enforce the 1st & 2nd Amendnents as written. Cause in that perfect world, crime is non-existent & everybody is loving & honest. But we don't live in that perfect world.

Clearly, we must have some reasonable & common sense regulations upon free speech and firearms owneship.

The only question is: what are those common-sense & reasonable regulations?

I guess the best answer is: the minimal needed to insure maximum exercising of these rights while also intelligently & wisely protecting the common good.

There obviously needs to be regulation. It would be less safe to have a criminal with an uzi even if I owned a gun myself.

 

[Thunder]

There obviously needs to be regulation. It would be less safe to have a criminal with an uzi even if I owned a gun myself.

right, so you agree that keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons, even if they have served their sentence, makes sense.

I agree. But they should also have the right to appeal this, which they do. Folks make mistakes and forgiveness is a good thing.

good to see folks showing common sense & not extremism about firearms regulations.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

right, so you agree that keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons, even if they have served their sentence, makes sense.

I agree. But they should also have the right to appeal this, which they do. Folks make mistakes and forgiveness is a good thing.

good to see folks showing common sense & not extremism about firearms regulations.

If they can prove to society that they aren't gonna shoot somebody for the hell of it than they are free to have a gun.

At the same time, illegal gun sale is impossible to stop. There will always be some gang that buys unregistered weapons. It's almost like weed. Except weed is much much less harmful than a bullet

 

[Alan B.]

No rights are absolute and the key to truly analyzing issues involving speech and or guns is to look at first the basis or interest for any regulation against the liberty. I think it is clearly reasonable to say that freedom of speech does not protect the right to commit perjury or libel. The same can be said of the right to bear arms, certainly it may well allow the individual to possess a rifle or pistol but does that give one the right to possess a vulcan mini gun or an RPG and to carry them into an airport I doubt it. Just as we can reasonably conclude that security is a national and state interest with in reason as is a functioning justice system. The question as well as the answer is rightfully one of degree.

 

[PirateMk1]

Some argue that since the 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, we should have NO laws regulating which guns we can own, how many we can own, and where we can use them.

But the Amendment to the Constitution right before it, says that govt. can't abridge Freedom of Speech, and yet we have all sorts of laws that limit what we can say, where we can say it, and how we can say it.

Do the folks who want a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment want people to be able to threaten the life of the President or other public officials? Should we have the right to publicly declare our support for enemies of the USA and swear to fight with them? Should we have the right to yell "fire!!" in a crowded theatre when we know there is a fire, to hopefully cause stampede & mass injuries/deaths?

In a perfect world, yes....we should enforce the 1st & 2nd Amendnents as written. Cause in that perfect world, crime is non-existent & everybody is loving & honest. But we don't live in that perfect world.

Clearly, we must have some reasonable & common sense regulations upon free speech and firearms owneship.

The only question is: what are those common-sense & reasonable regulations?

I guess the best answer is: the minimal needed to insure maximum exercising of these rights while also intelligently & wisely protecting the common good.

No rights are absolute and the key to truly analyzing issues involving speech and or guns is to look at first the basis or interest for any regulation against the liberty. I think it is clearly reasonable to say that freedom of speech does not protect the right to commit perjury or libel. The same can be said of the right to bear arms, certainly it may well allow the individual to possess a rifle or pistol but does that give one the right to possess a vulcan mini gun or an RPG and to carry them into an airport I doubt it. Just as we can reasonably conclude that security is a national and state interest with in reason as is a functioning justice system. The question as well as the answer is rightfully one of degree.

I disagree with both of you. Rights are absolute. Period. I have the RIGHT to say what ever I please, without being prosecuted by the goverment. That includes yelling "fire" in a theater. The law is clear you may make no law infringing this right. If you wish it to be infringed then you MUST pass an admendment stating so. There is no wiggle room as far I am concerend. These rights are ONLY protected from the goverment, not your fellow citizens. So, if for example, you perjure yourself on the witness stand, any party to the trial except the government can sue you for libel, and or perjury if they can prove direct harm from your perjury. The Bill of Rights ONLY protect you from prosecution by the government. The same with the 2nd admendment, the government may make no law infringing this right. Theoretically I CAN own a nuclear weapon or any other weapon of any kind. That said, the more sophisticated the weapon, the more expensive its gona be, kinda of self limitating. I am perfectly content if my neighbor has an M1 Abrams tank, espeacially if he lets me drive every once in awhile.

As we have seen even though we have inalieanable rights that are supposed to be protected by our government, freedom of speech, association, press, ect., our goverment slowly over time, encroaches on our rights in the name of this that or the other. For instance hate crimes. Crimes that are treated differently under the law because of what you may have thought or said, or even did. Isn't murder, regardless of the reason, murder? Isn't theft, just that, theft? Isn't battery, battery? How does what you think, change what you did? I say not at all? How can it? Speach requires two people. One to say something, the other to listen. I can say whatever I want, but nobody is gona listen unless they want to. That my friends is the key.:twocents:

 

[Texan]

I disagree with both of you. Rights are absolute. Period. I have the RIGHT to say what ever I please, without being prosecuted by the goverment. That includes yelling "fire" in a theater. The law is clear you may make no law infringing this right. If you wish it to be infringed then you MUST pass an admendment stating so. There is no wiggle room as far I am concerend. These rights are ONLY protected from the goverment, not your fellow citizens. So, if for example, you perjure yourself on the witness stand, any party to the trial except the government can sue you for libel, and or perjury if they can prove direct harm from your perjury. The Bill of Rights ONLY protect you from prosecution by the government. The same with the 2nd admendment, the government may make no law infringing this right. Theoretically I CAN own a nuclear weapon or any other weapon of any kind. That said, the more sophisticated the weapon, the more expensive its gona be, kinda of self limitating. I am perfectly content if my neighbor has an M1 Abrams tank, espeacially if he lets me drive every once in awhile.

As we have seen even though we have inalieanable rights that are supposed to be protected by our government, freedom of speech, association, press, ect., our goverment slowly over time, encroaches on our rights in the name of this that or the other. For instance hate crimes. Crimes that are treated differently under the law because of what you may have thought or said, or even did. Isn't murder, regardless of the reason, murder? Isn't theft, just that, theft? Isn't battery, battery? How does what you think, change what you did? I say not at all? How can it? Speach requires two people. One to say something, the other to listen. I can say whatever I want, but nobody is gona listen unless they want to. That my friends is the key.:twocents:

Very well put. I would just like to add, that from my perspective on the arms issue, is that the lawless seem to be able to own however many of anything no matter what type. I think this should be taken into consideration when applying it to what the lawfull can and can't own. To me a 22. is no match for a tank. (not to say that it's likely that your everyday outlaw is going to be running around in a tank) This right should not be infringed upon so that it effects the ability of the lawfull citizen to defend themselves, especially once more advanced weapons become more available.

 

[Ikari]

so you think there should be no regulations or restriction on what folks can say and print?

its ALL good? its ALL acceptable?

For the most part, yes. Also, the FCC should be restructured such that it polices piracy of the airwaves and nothing more.

 

[WeMustFight]

I think that saying that if we legalize ___ weapon than the criminals will also have it and then even if I have it I will be out gunned, is absurd. Criminals will get guns and weapons if their legal or not. They don't care if they break the law!

 

[TheLastIndependent]

I think that saying that if we legalize ___ weapon than the criminals will also have it and then even if I have it I will be out gunned, is absurd. Criminals will get guns and weapons if their legal or not. They don't care if they break the law!

There will always be illegal guns. But we also pay cops to deal with criminals. I think this problem can be solved if the police farce in America were actually decent.

 

[Texan]

There will always be illegal guns. But we also pay cops to deal with criminals. I think this problem can be solved if the police farce in America were actually decent.

A policeman is hardly ever at the right place, at the right time. We PAY a cop, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they HAVE to, or, are GOING to protect you. How many lawsuits have you ever seen where someone sues a cop for lack of protection. Unless it is blatant neglect I would think, never. I expect there to always be illegal guns. That's just reality. But I would at least hope that most people would want to have a chance at protecting themselves if they so choose without having to rely on someone else to do it for them. 90 percent of the time it is just not the case that someone will be there at the exact moment you need them to, and for it to be mandatory that we take such a risk is lunacy. And WeMustFight has a fair point about the criminality of it all. Why place a restriction on law abiding citizens that gives criminals the advantage of killing them without any fear of them defending themselves?

 

[tessaesque]

You can say whatever the hell you want. You have a right to speak freely, you do not have a right to immunity from the consequences of that speech.

 

[Paschendale]

I think what we really need to do is get away from the weird cowboy fantasy that there is some kind of war or arms race between "good citizens" and "the criminals". Most victims of violent crime are harmed by someone they know. Street gangs aren't going around killing innocent people all day. Mostly they shoot at each other. And they are not monolithic or a big team. There is no gang of robbers riding through town that a posse of armed citizens need to battle. That only happens in the movies.

 

[lpast]

A policeman is hardly ever at the right place, at the right time. We PAY a cop, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they HAVE to, or, are GOING to protect you. How many lawsuits have you ever seen where someone sues a cop for lack of protection. Unless it is blatant neglect I would think, never. I expect there to always be illegal guns. That's just reality. But I would at least hope that most people would want to have a chance at protecting themselves if they so choose without having to rely on someone else to do it for them. 90 percent of the time it is just not the case that someone will be there at the exact moment you need them to, and for it to be mandatory that we take such a risk is lunacy. And WeMustFight has a fair point about the criminality of it all. Why place a restriction on law abiding citizens that gives criminals the advantage of killing them without any fear of them defending themselves?

Law Enforcement Line of Duty Deaths in 2012



Total number of crimes reported: 10,329,135 (1,246,248 violent crimes and 9,082,887 property crimes);
Most common violent crime: aggravated assault (62.5 percent of all violent crimes during 2010);
Most common property crime: larceny-theft (68.2 percent of all property crimes during 2010);
Top three crimes for which law enforcement reported arrests: drug abuse violations (1,638,846), driving while intoxicated (1,412,223), and larceny-theft (1,271,410);
Total number of arrests, excluding traffic violations: 13,120,947, including 552,077 for violent crimes and 1,643,962 for property crimes (the number of arrests doesn’t reflect the number of individuals arrested—some individuals may have been arrested more than once);
Most common characteristics of arrestees: 74.5 percent of arrestees were male, and 69.4 percent of arrestees were white;
How often firearms were used in crimes: in 67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4 percent of reported robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults; and
Total losses for victims of property crimes, excluding arsons: an estimated $15.7 billion.


FBI — Latest Crime Statistics: Volumes Continue to Fall


I could post alot more facts but theres no purpose...Police cant protect everyone that is already in a bad spot...but they do protect and save untold numbers...and they do it everyday

 

[TheLastIndependent]

A policeman is hardly ever at the right place, at the right time. We PAY a cop, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they HAVE to, or, are GOING to protect you. How many lawsuits have you ever seen where someone sues a cop for lack of protection. Unless it is blatant neglect I would think, never. I expect there to always be illegal guns. That's just reality. But I would at least hope that most people would want to have a chance at protecting themselves if they so choose without having to rely on someone else to do it for them. 90 percent of the time it is just not the case that someone will be there at the exact moment you need them to, and for it to be mandatory that we take such a risk is lunacy. And WeMustFight has a fair point about the criminality of it all. Why place a restriction on law abiding citizens that gives criminals the advantage of killing them without any fear of them defending themselves?

I have no problem with a law abiding citizen having a gun. I don't think that a criminal should be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a high powered rifle. Hell, I wouldn't feel safe if half of the law abiders around here had high powered rifles.

 

[Thrilla]

Some argue that since the 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, we should have NO laws regulating which guns we can own, how many we can own, and where we can use them.

But the Amendment to the Constitution right before it, says that govt. can't abridge Freedom of Speech, and yet we have all sorts of laws that limit what we can say, where we can say it, and how we can say it.

Do the folks who want a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment want people to be able to threaten the life of the President or other public officials? Should we have the right to publicly declare our support for enemies of the USA and swear to fight with them? Should we have the right to yell "fire!!" in a crowded theatre when we know there is a fire, to hopefully cause stampede & mass injuries/deaths?

In a perfect world, yes....we should enforce the 1st & 2nd Amendnents as written. Cause in that perfect world, crime is non-existent & everybody is loving & honest. But we don't live in that perfect world.

Clearly, we must have some reasonable & common sense regulations upon free speech and firearms owneship.

The only question is: what are those common-sense & reasonable regulations?

I guess the best answer is: the minimal needed to insure maximum exercising of these rights while also intelligently & wisely protecting the common good.

make any law about firearms you wanna make.... as long as it doesn't infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

 

[TurtleDude]

make any law about firearms you wanna make.... as long as it doesn't infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

laws restricting USE are generally permissible-you cannot fire a 50 caliber rifle in the city square or discharge a shotgun across a public right of way

Possession restrictions are generally of dubious legitimacy

 

[TheLastIndependent]

laws restricting USE are generally permissible-you cannot fire a 50 caliber rifle in the city square or discharge a shotgun across a public right of way

Possession restrictions are generally of dubious legitimacy

Because all repeat law breakers should be able to walk out of jail and buy a gun

 

[TurtleDude]

Because all repeat law breakers should be able to walk out of jail and buy a gun

uh that is a stupid comment. rights can be taken away through due process of law. I am talking about preventing honest people from owning the same guns that our tax dollars supply CIVILIAN LEOs.

 

[Thunder]

uh that is a stupid comment. rights can be taken away through due process of law. I am talking about preventing honest people from owning the same guns that our tax dollars supply CIVILIAN LEOs.

LEOs go through firearms training and a background check.

and anyways, why would you want civilians to have the same guns as LEOs?

do you want LEOs to face a fair-fight when taking on robbers & rapists?

 

[Thrilla]

LEOs go through firearms training and a background check.

and anyways, why would you want civilians to have the same guns as LEOs?

do you want LEOs to face a fair-fight when taking on robbers & rapists?

why should they have greater rights than us mere citizens?