Regulate & restrict Freedom of Speech/Right to Bear Arms

[TurtleDude]

so if a civilian swears to fight crime, he too can have the "cooler" guns?



in any event, your argument is garbage..... there is no legitimate rationale behind it.

maybe a cape and a leotard too!!

 

[Thunder]

a salary is higher motivation than your own existence?

that's really really stupid...

no, what's really really stupid, is suggesting that this has anything to do with salary.

 

[Thunder]

so if a civilian swears to fight crime, he too can have the "cooler" guns?....

sure, as long as the little ****er gets a thorough background check & training.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

All of the limits on free speech and the freedom of assembly pertain to your ability to harm people by speaking or assembly-- you are not allowed to incite violence or impugn someone's honor through malicious lies, nor are you allowed to block public thoroughfares or obstruct others' lawful business. (Though the latter is only laxly enforced.)

Any Constitutional limitation on your freedom to keep and bear arms would have to pass the same test. And the thing is, keep and bearing arms only harms other people when they are either deliberately fired or they are stored and/or handled in a negligent fashion, which are already properly recognized as crimes. You have the right to carry any weapon you need for self-defense, but you do not have the right to fire that weapon in a fashion that endangers others-- such as outside of designated areas-- unless you are acting in immediate defense of life or property.

 

[TurtleDude]

All of the limits on free speech and the freedom of assembly pertain to your ability to harm people by speaking or assembly-- you are not allowed to incite violence or impugn someone's honor through malicious lies, nor are you allowed to block public thoroughfares or obstruct others' lawful business. (Though the latter is only laxly enforced.)

Any Constitutional limitation on your freedom to keep and bear arms would have to pass the same test. And the thing is, keep and bearing arms only harms other people when they are either deliberately fired or they are stored and/or handled in a negligent fashion, which are already properly recognized as crimes. You have the right to carry any weapon you need for self-defense, but you do not have the right to fire that weapon in a fashion that endangers others-- such as outside of designated areas-- unless you are acting in immediate defense of life or property.

which is what I said though less well detailed. I have never met a Pro Rights advocate who opposes laws that say prohibit shooting a gun over a public road, or discharging rifles in a heavily populated residential areas etc

 

[Thunder]

which is what I said though less well detailed. I have never met a Pro Rights advocate who opposes laws that say prohibit shooting a gun over a public road, or discharging rifles in a heavily populated residential areas etc

what about the law in NYS saying you can only fire your weapon on your property if yuou are 500+ ft. from another residence?

 

[TurtleDude]

what about the law in NYS saying you can only fire your weapon on your property if yuou are 500+ ft. from another residence?

that is stupid-for example if I have 100 acres and my house is on the very south edge of my property and your house is 100 yards behind mine (south of my house) and my range is shooting north than the law is stupid. on the other hand, if your house is 100 yards north of mine it would be dangerous for me to discharge a rifle towards your home

 

[Thunder]

that is stupid-for example if I have 100 acres and my house is on the very south edge of my property and your house is 100 yards behind mine (south of my house) and my range is shooting north than the law is stupid. on the other hand, if your house is 100 yards north of mine it would be dangerous for me to discharge a rifle towards your home

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.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

not the point-its where the bullets will land

BTW a 30-06 can kill you at a range of more than a couple miles

on the other hand, i have been hit with shotgun pellets 100s of times while dove hunting in south america from other shooters 200 yards away, its like getting rained on by small hale

 

[TheLastIndependent]

BTW a 30-06 can kill you at a range of more than a couple miles

I doubt thatbit has killing power over a couple I'd miles. The range of one is barely 1800 meters which is Kay pushing over a mile. You'd pretty much have to shoot at a thirty degree angle and even then I doubt that it would kill

 

[TurtleDude]

I doubt thatbit has killing power over a couple I'd miles. The range of one is barely 1800 meters which is Kay pushing over a mile. You'd pretty much have to shoot at a thirty degree angle and even then I doubt that it would kill

maybe we can test the theory out. but yes it can kill you at a couple miles even though making that shot would be beyond the range of possibility for even most of the very best.

45 degree angle the round will easily carry past 2 miles

 

[TheLastIndependent]

maybe we can test the theory out. but yes it can kill you at a couple miles even though making that shot would be beyond the range of possibility for even most of the very best.

45 degree angle the round will easily carry past 2 miles

I would be more than happy to test it out. I know that you can get a bullet that far but I doubt that it will have the capability to kill.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would be more than happy to test it out. I know that you can get a bullet that far but I doubt that it will have the capability to kill.

Uh I know better. get back to me when you have spent 40 years as a competitive shooter, PD trainer, tactical weapons instructor, etc

 

[TheLastIndependent]

Uh I know better. get back to me when you have spent 40 years as a competitive shooter, PD trainer, tactical weapons instructor, etc

You could have easily just shown your credibility prior to now and I would've just taken your word for it. I am by no means a gun expert

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You could have easily just shown your credibility prior to now and I would've just taken your word for it. I am by no means a gun expert

That's obvious enough.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

That's obvious enough.

What have I posted that says that I am not a gun expert?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What have I posted that says that I am not a gun expert?

Nearly everything in which you've addressed any technical aspects of firearms or ballistics. I don't particularly consider myself an expert on the topic, but I know enough to know that most of what you have posted on the subject is rather badly incorrect.

 

[Goshin]

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.

IMO all restrictions on free speech and the right to arms should meet the strict scrutiny test.

1. Absolutely necessary in order for society/government to function.
2. Primarily infringes on the criminal and does not impact the law-abiding, or impacts them only minimally.
3. Actually accomplishes the goals defined by #1.


Very few gun control laws meet this standard.

 

[ttwtt78640]

More to the constitutional point of this issue is at what level of gov't, may restrictions (limits) be placed upon these basic constitutional rights. I maintain that they must be placed ONLY at the federal level. Is it constitutional for state A to allow you to carry a firearm yet, if you travel to (or even through) state B with it then you may then be arrested, your firearm (personal property) taken and you may also face a fine/jail time? Is it constitutional for state A to require taking a class, passing a test and charging a fee to issue "gun permits" but not contitutional for state B to do the same exact thing for "public speaking permits"? Is it legal for states to establish age restrictions for constitutional rights that differ from specific right to right, in other words some rights apply regardless of age yet others do not get confered to you until you reach age 18, 21 or 104?

The 16th amendment specifically prohibits states from charging fees for ONLY the right to vote; does that mean that any and all states (or cities) are free to charge fees for the exercise of any and all other constitutional rights, by issuing separate (valid in that state only) temporary "rights permits" and then charging those that lack those permits with crimes should they attempt exercise that constitutional right with out having purchased the proper permit in advance? I hate the concept of a "gun permit" or a "CCW permit" - I feel that if you have the right to vote then you should have ALL other consitutional rights, any federal restriction (or prohibition of restrictions) on a constitutional right should apply equally in all of the states.

 

[Harshaw]

IMO all restrictions on free speech and the right to arms should meet the strict scrutiny test.

1. Absolutely necessary in order for society/government to function.
2. Primarily infringes on the criminal and does not impact the law-abiding, or impacts them only minimally.
3. Actually accomplishes the goals defined by #1.


Very few gun control laws meet this standard.

Well, that's not exactly the strict scrutiny test, but it has the spirit of it.

I actually think every law should have to pass strict scrutiny.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Woops, that is the 24th, not the 16th, amendment that I refered to. Sorry.

 

[TheLastIndependent]

Nearly everything in which you've addressed any technical aspects of firearms or ballistics. I don't particularly consider myself an expert on the topic, but I know enough to know that most of what you have posted on the subject is rather badly incorrect.

I have literally posted once on the topic of ballistics. You are just trying to render me based on one comment that isn't radically off base.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

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.

But???? I don't see any conflict. Are you aware of a law that prohibits the basic actions of talking or writing?

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?

Is any person "who want a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment" arguing that the 2nd Amendment protects shooting the President or actually joining an enemy and fighting the USA or shooting up a theater, even if it's just in the air, "to hopefully cause stampede & mass injuries/deaths?" As far as I know (and I have been paying attention) all gun rights supporters want is to be left alone.

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

If you are going to make equivalencies in legitimate 'regulations' shouldn't there at least be some equality in what is being regulated? Why does the control envelope address actions for "free speech" but addresses basic ownership of a firearm? I'll agree that the two are comparable if you are saying that tongues must be cut out to avoid dangerous speech and hands should be lopped off to make sure nothing bad is written.

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

Well, no right is absolute in an ordered society. That means that there are legitimate intrusions into our rights to maintain public order.

Yes, free speech is regulated by laws that define what speech is obscene or threatening to order or injurious. The press is regulated by laws defining what is obscene also, and libelous or what is a slanderous accusation. Religion is regulated in ways that restrict the citizen's free exercise. Animal and human sacrifices, polygamy and use of illicit substances are all declared illegal. Assembly and Petition is regulated as to where and when one may protest, the permits required to do so, payment for police overtime, requiring bonds to be held for damage etc.

None of these regulations can be described as having prohibitory action on the right itself.

Not being able to scream fire in a crowded theater does not silence you outside the theater.

Laws against libel don't prevent you from writing and publishing.

Laws against human sacrifice don't prevent you from worshiping your God.

Laws requiring 200,000 pro or anti-abortion protesters to get a permit doesn't affect your local, 50 member Democratic club from having a picnic and softball game in the park.

All these regulations have at their core, a proscription against certain behavior that is or could immediately lead to an abuse of the right in question.

So, in answer to your question, (the ONLY question in your opinion), "what are those common-sense & reasonable regulations?". . . If we are to use the regulations on speech and the press as a guideline, I would say that the acts of brandishing a firearm, threatening to shoot someone and actually shooting at someone without just cause and of course, unjustifiable homicide should be illegal. No problem with that. Such illegitimate action against your fellow man is most certainly an abuse of the right to be armed.

The only regulations barring the simple ownership of guns I consider legitimate are those disabling the right for underage persons, felons, the mentally disabled, drug and alcohol abusers and those dishonorably discharged from the military.

If you are advocating for regulations beyond those your false equivalency is exposed and your point, whatever it might be, is simply authoritarian rubbish.

 

[Henrin]

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.

I'm still not following this train of thought.

Somehow when I yell fire that means the reasonable response is running people the **** off and killing them.

Somehow even if it does or it doesn't that means I should be held responsible for mere suggestion.

Just...retarded.

 

[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?

As we have seen even though we have inalieanable rights that are supposed to be protected by our government,

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