To what extent to you support the 1st and 2nd amendment?

[vergiss]

No, I checked, you voted to ban all firearms.

Sigh. Do you ever bother to read people's posts? :roll: I said I meant to click the second option. I'm hardly the first person to accidentally choose the unintended option because she wasn't paying attention.

A legal court declaration of mental incompetence would be the line in my eyes.

A legal ruling of insanity only comes about once a person has already committed a crime and intends to use insanity as a plea.

I'm Australian.

 

[vergiss]

Those reporters who would report such a thing should fry for treason as much the person who leeked the info to them.Those reporters and everyone involved in lettting that story reach the general public should be made examples out of by being executed and the company permanatly put out of business.

God, I'd be as appalled as anyone, but does the word "draconic" mean anything to you?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Oh? And why does a person who's had depression or who suffers from a chronic mental disorder such as bipolar or post-traumatic stress disorder deserve less of a right to defend themself than you,

Andrea Yates proves that people suffering depression probably need to have their bathing habits supervised. There's a whole long list of clinically depressed people murdering their families and committing suicide. That's why some restrictions on gun ownership are necessary.

Only the insane would demand the unsane be allowed unlimited access to firearms.

don't live in the US. Read my post. You do know there are other countries on the Earth, right?

None that matter.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

No, they should not.

So, who's fault is it then, when the raiders are led into a trap because the NY Times gave advance warning and Americans die?

Who's fault is it then, when an escaped bin Laden orchestrates another attack that kills thousands more?

Treason is not protected speech. One can quibble on the definition of treason, but the scenario I described comfortably fits inside. In the scenario presented, the NY Times:

1) Broke national security laws by releasing classified documents.

2) Knowingly placed an on-going operation at risk.

3) Warned an enemy of the nation that an attack was coming.

The editors and publishers of any paper that did all three should hang, by any convenient body part, until dead.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Sigh. Do you ever bother to read people's posts? :roll: I said I meant to click the second option. I'm hardly the first person to accidentally choose the unintended option because she wasn't paying attention.

The fact remains no matter what you intended to vote for, you did vote for a complete ban. You tried to imply you didn't. I have never in my life accidentally voted for the wrong thing. Why is it you and Florida voters have that problem?

A legal ruling of insanity only comes about once a person has already committed a crime and intends to use insanity as a plea.

I'm Australian.

Not in this country. To be committed or have others take control of your affairs you have a legal competency hearing. Those not legally adjudicated insane, or incapable of handling their affairs and felons can legally have their rights taken from them. Due process of law we call it.

Sad that a nation like yours has joined the illogical gun banners. I am sure that sooner or later it will come to its senses. The consequences have been pretty bad so far. Love the current calls for knife control there.

 

[Vandeervecken]

So, who's fault is it then, when the raiders are led into a trap because the NY Times gave advance warning and Americans die?

I would blame the idiot commanders who ordered the attack to go on after it was published in the NY Times. That would be an indescribably stupid act.

Who's fault is it then, when an escaped bin Laden orchestrates another attack that kills thousands more?

That would be bin Laden's fault, and the Bush administration as they have not really been looking for him for years.

Treason is not protected speech. One can quibble on the definition of treason, but the scenario I described comfortably fits inside. In the scenario presented, the NY Times:

We are not at war, so there is no treason sort of making war on the US by a US citizen. Your scenario does not describe that act.

1) Broke national security laws by releasing classified documents.

See Amendment 1. This issue was settled in the Pentagon Papers affair long since.

2) Knowingly placed an on-going operation at risk.

See Amendment 1

3) Warned an enemy of the nation that an attack was coming.

bin Laden is not a nation. We are not currently at war with any nation on earth as such there is no such thing as an enemy nation.

The editors and publishers of any paper that did all three should hang, by any convenient body part, until dead.

See Amendment 1.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I would blame the idiot commanders who ordered the attack to go on after it was published in the NY Times. That would be an indescribably stupid act.

What about Hassan the used camel salesman that's been on the spot for the last two years that gets beheaded as a result? What if the story is put to bed after the troops are committed? Are you trying to say the newspaper wouldn't have any culpability at all?

That would be bin Laden's fault, and the Bush administration as they have not really been looking for him for years.

No, just like our little Rapist had much to answer for when he turned away a free offer of bin Laden's during his term, any paper helping him get away again would share the blame for his future crimes.

We are not at war, so there is no treason sort of making war on the US by a US citizen. Your scenario does not describe that act.

Yeah, that's a good answer. Say the scenario doesn't match current conditions therefore it's absurd and irrelevant.

See Amendment 1. This issue was settled in the Pentagon Papers affair long since.

What? A liberal court and a liberal press covered the story sympathetically to the flagship liberal paper? Those people definitely had an agenda during the '70's, beyond doubt. And, of course, arguing from authority simply means you're not able to defend your position and you're trying to find an out.

See Amendment 1.

Yeah, publishing classified documents is still a crime under federal law. Funny how the courts let that one stay. Since you're busy arguing from authority, have fun with that one.

Fact of the matter is, let them print the stuff. Then shoot them for providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Leave the press out of it. I'm easy. So long as they get properly shot for treason, I don't really care about the legal niceties.

What do you think would have happened to the editors of a newspaper that published the battle plans for the Normandie invasion on June 1, 1944? (Assume they published the plans on June 1. I know full well that D-Day at 6/6/44, thank you)

I am not "moving the goal post", the scenario offered above was presented to illustrate that the First Amendment isn't an absolute and that there are situtations in which the people's interest in controlling the press outweighs the individual's freedom to be a blabbermouth. If you're having a problem with the specific scenario I originally presented, let's work together to develop a scenario in which you would agree that the press should be stifled.

Are you aware of the origin of the phrase "Loose Lips Sink Ships"?

 

[vergiss]

Andrea Yates proves that people suffering depression probably need to have their bathing habits supervised. There's a whole long list of clinically depressed people murdering their families and committing suicide. That's why some restrictions on gun ownership are necessary.

:doh

As I've said, 1 in 4 people will suffer from a mental illness. Just because one poor woman whose husband refused to get her the treatment she needed went right off the edge doesn't mean that the other tens of millions of Americans with a mental disorder are going to kill their families. :lol:

The mentally unwell are no more violent than you or I. This is a false and cruel stereotype which has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect, yet continues to be promoted due to ignorance. What's more, it's an incredibly damaging stereotype - it increases the stigma sufferers face, thereby making them reluctant to seek help, and dimishes support for mental health services and charities. Mental illness is a poor predictor of violence, ranking well after other factors including youth, male gender or poverty (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/36/9/10). Do you plan to prevent men from owning firearms?

If they're going to harm anyone, it'll almost definitely be themselves - obviously those in immediate danger of committing suicide need to have any potentially lethal equipment removed from their presence. However, those who are receiving the correct medical treatment are just as sympom-free and healthy as anyone else.

Sufferers are sick, not "crazy".

 

[vergiss]

The fact remains no matter what you intended to vote for, you did vote for a complete ban. You tried to imply you didn't. I have never in my life accidentally voted for the wrong thing. Why is it you and Florida voters have that problem?

I didn't realise you were God, and had never made a careless and unimportant mistake in your life. Personally, I don't see how an online forum poll is anything like a federal election, but okay...

Not in this country. To be committed or have others take control of your affairs you have a legal competency hearing. Those not legally adjudicated insane, or incapable of handling their affairs and felons can legally have their rights taken from them. Due process of law we call it.

Yes, but once it gets to that point, they're in a psychiatric facility. They're hardly going to be allowed weapons in there, anyway.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The mentally unwell are no more violent than you or I. This is a false and cruel stereotype which has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect, yet continues to be promoted due to ignorance. What's more, it's an incredibly damaging stereotype - it increases the stigma sufferers face, thereby making them reluctant to seek help, and dimishes support for mental health services and charities.

So? Since it's not possible to determine which nut is going to crack, and it is known that nuts do crack, it's not sensible to simply let them have any firearm they want.

Of course, you're cherry picking what I said. Considering that most people don't even know they're suffering clinical depression, it's not like the average sufferer is going to flip out. And, as I said, there's tremendous difficulty in writing law that would limit gun access to only the nuttiest of the fruitcakes. That does not, however, change the fact that gun access should have some reasonable limits placed on them.

This is opposed to places like Autralia, where no one is allowed to have guns, or England, where not only are guns banned but knives are subject to ridiculous restrictions.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I didn't realise you were God, and had never made a careless and unimportant mistake in your life. Personally, I don't see how an online forum poll is anything like a federal election, but okay...



Yes, but once it gets to that point, they're in a psychiatric facility. They're hardly going to be allowed weapons in there, anyway.

Don't know about your country, but in this country nuthouses are hospitals where people are treated for their illnesses and re-habilitated so they can return to life on the outside. Which means, definitely, that a schizophrenic with delusions can learn to control his disease with medications, get released, and then stop taking his meds, thus restoring himself to his delusional state.

So being outside of a nuthouse doesn't mean you don't belong inside.

 

[vergiss]

So? Since it's not possible to determine which nut is going to crack, and it is known that nuts do crack, it's not sensible to simply let them have any firearm they want.

The mentally well go around shooting just as many people. Going to stop them from owning guns? The mentally ill are no more violent than those who aren't, so why take away their rights?

Considering that most people don't even know they're suffering clinical depression...

Uh, what? When a person is depressed enough for it to be a disease, they kinda notice.

Don't know about your country, but in this country nuthouses are hospitals where people are treated for their illnesses and re-habilitated so they can return to life on the outside. Which means, definitely, that a schizophrenic with delusions can learn to control his disease with medications, get released, and then stop taking his meds, thus restoring himself to his delusional state.

So being outside of a nuthouse doesn't mean you don't belong inside.

Sigh, yes, but once they are RELEASED they are no longer insane - as in, legally unfit to care for themselves.

If you had any knowledge at all on the subject, you would not be so ignorant and heartless as to call those who are just sick "nuts" or "fruitcakes". Shut the hell up and start to thank God you're one of the healthy ones - so far.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Sigh, yes, but once they are RELEASED they are no longer insane - as in, legally unfit to care for themselves.

If you had any knowledge at all on the subject, you would not be so ignorant and heartless as to call those who are just sick "nuts" or "fruitcakes". Shut the hell up and start to thank God you're one of the healthy ones - so far.

If you had an EXPERIENCE with the subject, you'd know perfectly well that people go off their meds, adjust their dosages, and self-medicate all the time without clinical supervision. Funny how you just ignored that part of what I've been saying.

No. I'm not one of the canaries, nor will I be. Lunacy and perfection don't go well together.

 

[Vandeervecken]

What about Hassan the used camel salesman that's been on the spot for the last two years that gets beheaded as a result? What if the story is put to bed after the troops are committed? Are you trying to say the newspaper wouldn't have any culpability at all?

Tough look for Hassan. There is no operation that is so committed it cannot be withdrawn in the time it takes to publish a newspaper story. What an absurd question. How long do you think paratroops spend in the air? Days? LOL If the story has been published and spread around the world, that takes more than enough time to call back the mission.

No, just like our little Rapist had much to answer for when he turned away a free offer of bin Laden's during his term, any paper helping him get away again would share the blame for his future crimes.

LOL once again when it is shown Bush has failed they try and say "Clinton did it too!" LOL You might note, bin Laden had not attacked the United States mainland and killed 3,000 citizens under Clinton. You might also note the deal you refer to would have required the US to give weapons and legal cover to the genocide in the Sudan. You might also note that every mission aimed at taking out bin Laden after that was met with howling opposition by the GOP and screams of "Wag the Dog," as the GOP made the entire force of the US government focus on oral sex in the Oval Office rather than national security.

Yeah, that's a good answer. Say the scenario doesn't match current conditions therefore it's absurd and irrelevant.

You gave a scenario, I pointed out that the scenario you gave does not match the claims you next made. Sorry if you were inconsistent. Hardly my fault though.

What? A liberal court and a liberal press covered the story sympathetically to the flagship liberal paper? Those people definitely had an agenda during the '70's, beyond doubt. And, of course, arguing from authority simply means you're not able to defend your position and you're trying to find an out.

The Ellsberg case went all the way to the Supreme Court. It is settled legal precedent. That is not arguing from authority. You asked what legal complications an action would entail. I pointed to settled US case-law. That is a perfectly relevant cite, not a fallacious argument. How do you plan on discussing legal issues and not discuss precedent and statutory law?

Yeah, publishing classified documents is still a crime under federal law. Funny how the courts let that one stay. Since you're busy arguing from authority, have fun with that one.

Please show us the last time this law held up in court. It is also still the law in Michigan that one needs to stop and fire 3 red rockets in the air at every intersection while driving a motor vehicle. The law books are full of laws long since thrown out by the courts or ignored. The fact is settled court precedent is that the press cannot be constrained.

Fact of the matter is, let them print the stuff. Then shoot them for providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Leave the press out of it. I'm easy. So long as they get properly shot for treason, I don't really care about the legal niceties.

No declaration of war = no enemy. No enemy = no treason. It is really that easy.

What do you think would have happened to the editors of a newspaper that published the battle plans for the Normandie invasion on June 1, 1944? (Assume they published the plans on June 1. I know full well that D-Day at 6/6/44, thank you)

Ah but we WERE in a declared state of war then. We are not now. BTW D-Day was supposed to be 6-5--44, weather delayed it a day.

I am not "moving the goal post", the scenario offered above was presented to illustrate that the First Amendment isn't an absolute and that there are situations in which the people's interest in controlling the press outweighs the individual's freedom to be a blabbermouth. If you're having a problem with the specific scenario I originally presented, let's work together to develop a scenario in which you would agree that the press should be stifled.

Those situations require a declared state of war. Something we have not be in since 1945.

Are you aware of the origin of the phrase "Loose Lips Sink Ships"?

Yes, it was World War One propaganda, recycled in World War Two, why do you ask? You might note that again, we were in a declared state of war for those two conflicts. We are not now.

 

[Vandeervecken]

I didn't realise you were God, and had never made a careless and unimportant mistake in your life. Personally, I don't see how an online forum poll is anything like a federal election, but okay...

So in your world the choices are God or careless? Interesting. No range in between? It takes 2 separate acts to vote in the poll, did you not double check the first before performing the second?

Yes, but once it gets to that point, they're in a psychiatric facility. They're hardly going to be allowed weapons in there, anyway.

Not in our country, to put them there would require the court hearing.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Tough look for Hassan.

Okay. You've demonstrated you're not capable of understanding that harm can befall from imprudent speech and that persons causing such harm should be subject to both criminal and civil actions.

No point in discussing the real world with you.

Next.

 

[jamesrage]

God, I'd be as appalled as anyone, but does the word "draconic" mean anything to you?

When it comes to traitors we have to be harsh to them,examples need to be made out of these people.

.A reporter does not have license to commit treason.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Okay. You've demonstrated you're not capable of understanding that harm can befall from imprudent speech and that persons causing such harm should be subject to both criminal and civil actions.

No point in discussing the real world with you.

Next.

When you are out of all other ideas, call the opponent names. Tut tut. I'll accept your abject surrender in that case.

Your question was not did I think publishing such information was prudent. It was not wether I thought publishing such information was morally right. Your question was not wether I, if reporter or editor or publisher was I, would publish such information. You questioned the legal Constitutionality of such. No court would hold the paper in your scenario either criminally or civilly libel for publishing that. It has been settled over and over and there are Supreme Court precedents of which I cited one for you. Newspapers are protected by the 1st Amendment and this cannot be infringed in any way outside of a declared state of where wherein the rules are a bit different.

I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you.

 

[Vandeervecken]

When it comes to traitors we have to be harsh to them,examples need to be made out of these people.

.A reporter does not have license to commit treason.

Your scenario did not indicate any treason. Treason is VERY narrowly defined in a legal sense. In fact it is the one and only crime defined in the Constitution itself. You might also note the Constitution sets a very high bar on evedence needed to convict for treason too.

Of course pointing out the facts on your misuse of a legal term will no doubt be called the fallacy of an appeal to authority. You'd do so wrongly as I'd be glad to demonstrate if you so choose, but I expect you to choose it.

 

[jamesrage]

Your scenario did not indicate any treason. Treason is VERY narrowly defined in a legal sense. In fact it is the one and only crime defined in the Constitution itself. You might also note the Constitution sets a very high bar on evedence needed to convict for treason too.

Of course pointing out the facts on your misuse of a legal term will no doubt be called the fallacy of an appeal to authority. You'd do so wrongly as I'd be glad to demonstrate if you so choose, but I expect you to choose it.

IF a American news media aired top secret government information for the entire world to see you would be in favor of them not being tried for treason?

 

[Vandeervecken]

IF a American news media aired top secret government information for the entire world to see you would be in favor of them not being tried for treason?

Unless we are in a declared state of war, such an action cannot be treason under the Constitution. It is really that simple. So the answer is clearly no. Just as I wouldn't want them to be tried for jay-walking for doing that, or indecent exposure, or any number of other crimes such an action is clearly not.

Perhaps you might want to review, legally, what a charge of treason entails. I suggest you go read Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

When you are out of all other ideas, call the opponent names.

I said:

"Okay. You've demonstrated you're not capable of understanding that harm can befall from imprudent speech and that persons causing such harm should be subject to both criminal and civil actions."

That's a rather esoteric form of name-calling, I must say. Usually when I have the urge to describe someone as a blank blank, I just fill in the blanks.

Since you disagree with that assessment, do you in fact agree that harm can come from imprudent yap flapping?

If you do agree that harm can come, do you assert that it's still permissible? If the speech is permissible, then the Constitution grants people the freedom to harm others without consequence. Do you think the Constitution does that?

Clearly you do make that assertion, else you'd be agreeing with me.

I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Guns should be curbed to the best of our ability.....

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

"America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)"

"The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993) "

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

"The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"

"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"

 

[jamesrage]

Guns should be curbed to the best of our ability.....

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

"America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)"

"The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993) "

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

"The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"

"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"

So what are your thoughts on the 1st amendment?

 

[TurtleDude]

Guns should be curbed to the best of our ability.....

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

"America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)"

"The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993) "

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

"The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"

"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"

CDC calls people who were the same age as the average Nam infantryman "Children"

We should curb those who idolize communist scum before infringing on gun rights