Regulate & restrict Freedom of Speech/Right to Bear Arms

[rocket88]

Some of the same people who go on about "absolute right to own any weapon" are the ones who want to go to war with Iran to keep them from having nukes. Maybe they weren't endowed with the same rights from their creator.

Point is, we accept certain limits as the price of living in a decent society.

 

[jimbo]

u shouldn't be able to shoot your weapon from a position that's 100ft from my home. that's just dangerous.

300+ ft. from surrounding homes makes sense.

cause, you know...bullets drop off significantly after 300 ft.

Thunder, you are harder to keep up with than a 2 year old in a Toys R Us.

First you quote NY state laws that forbid shooting within 500 feet of your residence. Now you are apparently advocating that that should be amended down to 100 ft, or 300, whichever part of that sentence we are asked to believe. Actually, shooting in the direction of your home with my 300 WinMag at 1000 yards is far more dangerous than shooting in the direction of your home with a 20 gauge shotgun firing bird shot at 50 yards. Shooting away from your home at 10 yards, however, poses little risk to you with either.

Second, you state that bullets drop off significantly at 300 feet. The answer is, it depends. The last few deer that I have taken at 200 yards + with the Winmag would disagree with you. So too, would those persons that have been taken out in Afghanistan at distances of over a mile. (Ironically, substantially the same weapon, the .50 caliber rifle, well scoped, is readily available to the civilian market, in Va, at least, without a permit). Yet, in spite of their availability, I have never heard of one being used to hold up a 7/11, or in a home invasion.

After a thousand or so pages of posts by you, most of us have a fair idea just what you advocate as far as gun control, at least as far as this hour's position.

 

[Thunder]

Thunder, you are harder to keep up with than a 2 year old in a Toys R Us.

First you quote NY state laws that forbid shooting within 500 feet of your residence. Now you are apparently advocating that that should be amended down to 100 ft, or 300, whichever part of that sentence we are asked to believe.....

you apparently misunderstand my comments.

 

[Aberration]

My interpretation is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as it takes armed men to form militias, and well regulated militias are necessary for a free State.

Armed men are the initial step to eventually get to a well regulated militia. To oppress this right, would retard the entire process and jeopardize the liberty of a free State.

 

[PirateMk1]

Where does the government of the USA get its powers?



How can government be trusted to be protect something that is considered inalienable?

The Constitution. Its powers are declared in same said document. Its limitations are also declared in same said document. Speech, religion, assembly, press, and other rights are protected within the Constitution, the fact that they are inalienable are stated by the Declaration of Independence. As I have said before if you wish to limit my right to keep, and bear arms, or any other right for that matter, you must pass an amendment. The Constitution in the simplest of terms is a contract between you and I and the rest of our neighbors for how we are going to interact and solve disputes which arise in the course of life. Each of us are Sovereign, an independent country of exactly one. In order to live with and amongst each other we each give up a bit of that Sovereignty to each other in the form of the Constitution, which forms the framework for our government. To be more precise we loan a bit of our Sovereignty. We do this with every contract we bind ourselves with, loan a bit of Sovereignty to meet whatever ends we are trying to achieve. In the case of government, to protect ourselves from outside our country, and to provide a framework with which would solve disputes from amongst ourselves. These are the primary reasons for our government, all other reasons are ancillary.

Question. If I say something and no one hears it, and I say something and everyone hears it, besides the fact one is heard and the other is not, what is the difference? How is one DIRECTLY harmed by words?

In direct answer to your question Willie, the government cannot be trusted, nor should it be. Reagan said it best, "Trust but verify." I do trust my government, to do what is in THEIR interest, which may or may not coincide with mine. It is my responsibility to insure they do not overstep their bounds, as it is yours as well.

 

[PirateMk1]

It seems to me that more than a few people are not aware that our rights are interlinked. I may be wrong, however I would like to point a couple of things out.

Our rights are natural. That is they are ours from the time of our initial existance. Our country is the only one I am aware of, that is founded on this unique principle of natural rights. That WE THE PEOPLE are THE Source of the the power of our government, and the government exists solely at our pleasure. Just because we are endowed by our creator with rights, does not mean that they will not be taken from us. We must be ever vigilant and guard our rights jealously if we wish to keep them.

The second thing I would point out is that the freedom of speech and the freedom to keep and bear arms cannot exist one without the other. Think, how can you truly be free to speak out against injustice, if you and your fellow countrymen don't have the means to deter the natural violent tendencies of thugs and thieves. How can you prepare to fight injustice if you cannot spread the word and rally others to your cause? How can you assemble a group to challenge those who would do injustice to you and yours, if you cannot print inspirational words and spread them far? How would you defy those who would tell what god and how you should worship that god, if you could not gather and show others that they are not alone? One right cannot last long without the other rights. All of your rights are connected and all should be guarded jealously.:twocents:

 

[Willie Orwontee]

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. . . . Theoretically I CAN own a nuclear weapon or any other weapon of any kind.

Where does the government of the USA get its powers?

The Constitution. Its powers are declared in same said document. Its limitations are also declared in same said document.

Where do the powers delineated in the Constitution come from???

Answer, the people, by conferring (surrendering) powers.

Powers the people confer are powers they can no longer claim for as long as the Constitution is in force.

When it comes to ordered society there are no absolute rights. Even the most vital rights of liberty and life can be disabled or even extinguished for violating the rules of society following accepted practices of due process. Rights of expression are limited by the rights of others in society; you can not use inciteful speech with the intent of causing panic or calling for violence.

In the case of nuclear weapons, the powers to declare war and raise and support armies are supreme and preemptive. Once those powers are surrendered and granted to the federal government they can not be exercised by two entities. Does anyone claim they have the 1st Amendment right to print their own US currency or negotiate and enter into treaties with foreign nations? The principle of preemptive powers is very well established and in fact, the early cases were militia cases where there were conflicts between the state and federal governments over control of the organized militia.

As we have seen even though we have inalieanable rights that are supposed to be protected . . .

How can government be trusted to be protect something that is considered inalienable?

Speech, religion, assembly, press, and other rights are protected within the Constitution, the fact that they are inalienable are stated by the Declaration of Independence. As I have said before if you wish to limit my right to keep, and bear arms, or any other right for that matter, you must pass an amendment.

My point was that the designation of "inalienable" means that they can't really be entrusted to the care or protection of government. To expect an agent / agency of the government to keep secure that which can't be transferred to the government, is an oxymoron. Government can only "protect" inalienable rights with inaction, by not exceeding the powers granted to it.

As I have said before if you wish to limit my right to keep, and bear arms, or any other right for that matter, you must pass an amendment.

That's not exactly true. Like it or not, a certain scale of "limit" can exist because the government can always argue that a law limiting an action of the citizen (not just arms) serves a compelling governmental or societal interest. Because an illegitimate law can be affirmed is why having a judiciary that keeps its determinations attached to the Constitution is so important.

In order to live with and amongst each other we each give up a bit of that Sovereignty to each other in the form of the Constitution, which forms the framework for our government. To be more precise we loan a bit of our Sovereignty. We do this with every contract we bind ourselves with, loan a bit of Sovereignty to meet whatever ends we are trying to achieve.

You seem to have a general understanding that ours is constitution of conferred (surrendered) powers but you don't seem to follow through and apply the unavoidable

Question. If I say something and no one hears it, and I say something and everyone hears it, besides the fact one is heard and the other is not, what is the difference? How is one DIRECTLY harmed by words?

To keep the discussion in the philosophical, the first instance would be in a state of nature, unencumbered by the rules of society. The second instance occurs within society and your actions must conform with the legitimate concerns for the rights of others. To be a member of society you surrender and relinquish claims to certain interests and actions. You are not a "Sovereign, an independent country of exactly one" within society, you are on equal footing with every other member and no individual possesses more power that his fellow citizen (assuming that society is based on equal rights and standing). To argue that everyone can act according to his own wishes and desires s arguing for hedonistic anarchy, not ordered society.

In direct answer to your question Willie, the government cannot be trusted, nor should it be. Reagan said it best, "Trust but verify." I do trust my government, to do what is in THEIR interest, which may or may not coincide with mine. It is my responsibility to insure they do not overstep their bounds, as it is yours as well.

I'm not saying we should "trust" government, that's the last thing I'm saying. I'm just saying that there are interests that are no longer within the scope of direct, personal citizen direction and control; that those interests that have been surrendered , no claim can be made to them (for as long as the Constitution is deemed to be honored by that government).

 

[IRONMAN]

I know many people in the southern mid east and west states and they do need to have guns to defend themselves because the law is most likely hours away from them.
With that said every time an election comes along the NRA sends out letters for donations to fight the Dems that want to take our guns away.
Guess what, hundreds of years have gone by and we still have our rights to bear arms and they will never be taken away from us so you can forget that propaganda.
I still have my double barrel 12 gauge Steven Savage from when I was a kid.
I walked into my local hardware store and in 10 minutes I walked out with my gun, my amo and my license.

 

[American]

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.

The whole yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire has been totally debunked. The case in point says that the speech must incite unlawful behavior before it can be put into question. People running out of a theater is not unlawful.

 

[Thunder]

The whole yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire has been totally debunked. The case in point says that the speech must incite unlawful behavior before it can be put into question. People running out of a theater is not unlawful.

yelling "fire!!!" in a crowded theater, when you know there is no fire, for the purpose of causing panic & a stampeed, is illegal.

 

[Ikari]

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.

The one limit to our rights is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others in the process (this is where yelling fire in a crowded theater comes it). Other than that, open game.