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

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by jamesrage
I am not sure if you are aware of this but Iraq is a war zone,shh.... don't tell anyone I do not think anyone else knows that yet.

Terrorist have been using hospitals,mosques and other places as their bases.Soldiers are not intentionally going out and murdering innocent Iraqis as your source would have you beleave.

You should proably leave those leftist anti-american sites alone.This is what seperates leftist from everyone else.Everyone else will give our soldiers the benifit of the doubt,leftist however seem to jump on every story that discredits our troops.It was not conservative or moderates that were accusing troop of gunning down journalist,flushing the Qur'an down the toilet,making acusations of Gitmo being ran like a Soviet Gulag even though the accusers never been to Gitmo and other things.If there was a story that one of troops snatched candy from a little girl,I am sure you would be posting it right now.

It is a war zone that we created illegally. The sources are from people who are living in the area we are bombing. You cannot get anymore credible than a doctor trying to help the innocent victims of our bombs and bullets. Do you think a doctor trying to stop people from being injured is just a political agenda? Why can't you address the fact that no one was found in the rubble of that hospital? Why do you choose to believe something not true when you have no evidence to the contrary. If you can't prove it false, why think it false?

The accusations at GITMO were true. The UN, has condemned us for GITMO. These are not baseless claims.

 

[Goobieman]

It is a war zone that we created illegally

OK, I give up. How did we "illegally" create a war zone?

The sources are from people who are living in the area we are bombing.

This doesnt render their testimony unimpeachable - especially when you're talking about people living in Sunni areas.

You cannot get anymore credible than a doctor trying to help the innocent victims of our bombs and bullets. Do you think a doctor trying to stop people from being injured is just a political agenda?

It is absolutely possible for a doctor, like any other person, to have a political agenda, and for that agenda to affect his work.

If you can't prove it false, why think it false?

Because it hasnt been proven to be true.
You're a real fan of trying to get people to prove a negative in order to disprove your point rather than you proving your point yourself. Thats a sure sign of a weak position.

The accusations at GITMO were true.

Some were. Others were distortions and lies - all from people that, according to you, would have "no agenda".

 

[jamesrage]

It is a war zone that we created illegally. The sources are from people who are living in the area we are bombing. You cannot get anymore credible than a doctor trying to help the innocent victims of our bombs and bullets. Do you think a doctor trying to stop people from being injured is just a political agenda?.

Doctors are not automaticly free from bias

Why can't you address the fact that no one was found in the rubble of that hospital?

Why do you choose to believe something not true when you have no evidence to the contrary. If you can't prove it false, why think it false?

If you want to demonize our troops why not get a picture of a soldier
draw little red horns on his head,make his eyes red and maybe put a pitchfork in his hand.Because that gets the job done as much what these anti-american and left wing web sites try to do.

Here is a picture you can use.Right click, save to disk and edit it with windows paint.

The accusations at GITMO were true. The UN, has condemned us for GITMO. These are not baseless claims

What evidence do you have to support this?From what I understand the UN and anti-american groups that make these accusations have not been to Gitmo.

 

[Inuyasha]

Heh. Now that's a request I don't get every day...



I believe that these should be wholly legal for any adult citizen-- with the exception of any citizen that is currently serving a prison sentence.

The government derives both its authority and its ability to project force from the citizenry; the citizenry should be allowed to retain this capacity themselves, both for defense of home and community and as a specific check against the abuse of government power.

In the United States specifically, the Second Amendment to the Constitution was not written to protect our sporting arms. It was to ensure that the Militia-- legally defined as every able-bodied man between 18 and 45-- had the fully legal ability to equip itself in military fashion. A lot of people like to suggest that the National Guard and the Reserves are "the militia", but this is false; both are branches of our standing army, and would not need legal protection to remain armed in any event.

On a more practical level, these weapons are vastly impractical for most criminal applications, as they cannot be concealed easily and any use is going to draw a considerable amount of attention. Assault rifles are actually more practical for home defense than they are for any criminal purpose-- and machine guns just aren't practical for much of anything except fortification.



These aren't "firearms". They're "explosive ordinance" and, while I believe that the militia should have access to them, I think that they are too dangerous to be unregulated. They should be licensed and controlled, much as the explosives used for construction, mining, and agriculture are licensed and controlled.

These belong in a central armory.

Thank you Krat. Your post was most informative. it does, however raise some new questions in my mind.

As far as the arms mentioned I have searched as much as i can and I cannot find any actual laws that prohibit licensed ownership of these arms. I only searched up to 50 cal machine guns. However the AFT regulations bring on a whole slew of "catch 22's" and owning one of these more advanced infantry weapons is like walking through a mine field. here is the AFT site. You will soon see who they have managed a form of "gun contrl" without creating laws that would raise eyebrows among the citizenry.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/

The second amendment to the Constitution.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Looks plain, simple and forthright but therein lies the many problems not only in this amendment but with the Constitution in general. The reasons that i see for the problems of interpretation are the fact that the document is over 200 years old and not only has the language itself changed but also the conditions that lead to that particular use of language in the Constitution. This has resulted in the area of constitutional law being a bigger and more complicated field than most other modern nations.

My questions have to do with the first part of the text. Specifically with the Words "regulated" and "militia".

It seems that in the early days the militia was regulated by the legislature of the colony. During the Revolution the militia was controlled (regulated if you like) by the Massachusetts provincial congress. With the implementation of the US Congress it seems that this regulating passed to the federal government:

Article 1; section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining (regulating/training) the Militia," as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for only three specific missions: these missions are given in Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15, "To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to formalize this balance between the "well-regulated" militia and organized military forces. The militia act of 1792 clarified whom the militia consists of; " I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years"

The first "interpretation" of this part of the amendment was stated, though not law, by Trench Coxe in 1789:

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments,but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,in the hands of the people.

The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

One also has to note that the function and mission of the "well regulated militia" was far different than the idea we have today, that of Coxe as expressed in the third paragraph. The mission was mainly to defend against outside forces specifically the Indians, the French, the Spanish and the English.

In similar fashion is the statement Elbridge Gerry in 1789:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty . . . Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

This did not happen as we have had a "standing army" for the better part of our history.

In 1903 the federal government took over several National Guard units and made them federal reserve troops (BR). In 1933 with the implementation of the "National Guard Mobilization Act" the idea of a "militia" as refereed to by Coxe and Gerry ceased to exist. Today the "well regulated militia" is officially made up of the National Guard and the Naval militia. It is "well regulated" by the federal government thereby defeating the purpose that some e had in mind 200 years ago.

To me the only "well regulated militia" that would directly serve the people would have to be formed and regulated by the individual states. The militias and survival groups around the nation are not "well regulated" by ant stretch of the imagination and are no more than private armies similar to those of war lords in feudal timesIMO.

 

[Goobieman]

My questions have to do with the first part of the text. Specifically with the Words "regulated" and "militia".
...
To me the only "well regulated militia" that would directly serve the people would have to be formed and regulated by the individual states. The militias and survival groups around the nation are not "well regulated" by ant stretch of the imagination and are no more than private armies similar to those of war lords in feudal timesIMO.

BUT..

"...the right of the people..."

"well regulated" modifies "millitia"
"the militia" is a subset of "the people"
The right of "the people" is protected from infringement.

And so, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not linked to any membership or participation in a militia of any sort.

 

[Inuyasha]

BUT..


And so, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not linked to any membership or participation in a militia of any sort.

I am not questioning this part of the amendment. "The4 right to bear and keep arms" is straightforward IMO it is with the idea of "militia" where I have questions.

 

[Goobieman]

I am not questioning this part of the amendment. "The4 right to bear and keep arms" is straightforward IMO it is with the idea of "militia" where I have questions.

Well, clearly, miltias along the lines of those in the 17th nd 18th centuries, that is, groups of people from the local area forming up and drilling, no longer really exist. Several states still maintain militia laws as part of their revised codes and some states (Ohio for one) actually do have an 'organized militia' that does do some training and has access to regular army schools.

But it must be understood that the national Guard is not the militia. It is a federal force, part of the standing army, and was created under Congress' power to raise an army - in effect, NG units ate army reserve units that the stte governors can call up when necessary. This is constitutionally, legally and conceptually different than "militia".

But, as I said, none of this really matters in terms of the application of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Inuyasha]

But it must be understood that the national Guard is not the militia. It is a federal force, part of the standing army, and was created under Congress' power to raise an army - in effect, NG units ate army reserve units that the stte governors can call up when necessary. This is constitutionally, legally and conceptually different than "militia".

But, as I said, none of this really matters in terms of the application of the 2nd amendment.

I explained the postion of the NG in my longer post. But if you skipped over it here it is again.

"In contrast the United States National Guard, created by the Militia Act of 1903, was a federalized portion of the State militias which were converted into regular troops kept in reserve for the United States Army. The Defense Act of 1916 placed all state militia units under the National Guard. This act was later amended in 1933 under the National Guard Mobilization Act, to place all National Guard units under the control of the United States Army making them regular troops and effectively ending their status as citizen-militia forces under Article 1, section 8, paragraphs 15,16, of the Federal Constitution and the second amendment of the Federal Constitution."

I am talking about the II amendment in regard to militias not with regard to the right to "keep and bare arms."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There are two separate and independent clauses to this amendment and while inter-related they speak to two different subjects. I am speaking about the first clause not the second.

 

[Goobieman]

"In contrast the United States National Guard, created by the Militia Act of 1903, was a federalized portion of the State militias which were converted into regular troops kept in reserve for the United States Army. The Defense Act of 1916 placed all state militia units under the National Guard. This act was later amended in 1933 under the National Guard Mobilization Act, to place all National Guard units under the control of the United States Army making them regular troops and effectively ending their status as citizen-militia forces under Article 1, section 8, paragraphs 15,16, of the Federal Constitution and the second amendment of the Federal Constitution."

I think this pretty much supports what I said -- the NG is a part of the standing army and therefore not "militia".

I am talking about the II amendment in regard to militias not with regard to the right to "keep and bare arms."

Well... what about it?
It says that a WRM is necessary to the security of a free state.
So...?

 

[Inuyasha]

I think this pretty much supports what I said -- the NG is a part of the standing army and therefore not "militia".


Well... what about it?
It says that a WRM is necessary to the security of a free state.
So...?

What we have here, for some reason or another, is a failure to communicate ideas.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Thank you Krat. Your post was most informative. it does, however raise some new questions in my mind.

*bows* It is a pleasure to be of service.

As far as the arms mentioned I have searched as much as i can and I cannot find any actual laws that prohibit licensed ownership of these arms.

Certainly, but are you familiar with the history of the War on Drugs?

Cannabis was not originally outlawed. The original prohibition took the form of taxation and licensing-- except that the government simply declined every application for a license.

The process for obtaining a license for automatic weapons is expensive, time-consuming, and frequently denied outright. Coupled with the prohibitive cost of the weapons themselves, our current gun laws form a highly effective barrier against the average citizen outfitting himself as befits a member of the militia.

Contrast this with obtaining a Concealed Carry Permit in Wyoming-- which is a "shall issue" state-- it's relatively inexpensive at $75 (last time I checked) involves a short training course, and unless you are legally prohibited from owning a handgun, you cannot be denied a CCP.

You will soon see who they have managed a form of "gun control" without creating laws that would raise eyebrows among the citizenry.

That's something I am already well aware of. I'm not one of those NRA-types who argues in favor of enforcing current laws as if the current laws were not already a gross infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't give a damn about protecting hunting guns. There's no credible threat against our ability to own and use those.

My questions have to do with the first part of the text. Specifically with the Words "regulated" and "militia".

Well, before I begin, I'd like to note that I do not consider the Second Amendment particularly relevant. I addressed it in my first post primarily because it seemed as though there was a misunderstanding concerning it.

The Second Amendment only protects American citizens. I don't think that the British or the Japanese should be any less entitled to proper armament-- despite the assertions of their governments to the contrary.

Grammatically, however, the wording of the Second Amendment does not suggest that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon membership in or even the existence of the militia. It explains that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and thus, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's an explanation, not a condition.

One also has to note that the function and mission of the "well regulated militia" was far different than the idea we have today, that of Coxe as expressed in the third paragraph.

Several of the statements within the quoted passage contradict your interpretation. I've taken the liberty of isolating them below-- even in the context of the whole speech, they seem pretty clear that Americans should avail themselves of military arms.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Not only are Americans free to keep and bear arms, they are expected to.

They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.

I will note here that, contrary to popular assertion, this is still entirely possible. Remember that the soldiers and officers of our military would be highly reluctant to use military force against their countrymen in the first place-- there would be many desertions-- and that our military numbers a couple of million out of the couple hundred million civilians.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

This passage is definitely in line with the popular sentiment that the armed citizen exists to defend his fellow citizens against his own government as much as against foreign governments.

Gerry, as well, can be interpreted heavily in favor of private ownership of arms.

Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

In 1933 with the implementation of the "National Guard Mobilization Act" the idea of a "militia" as refereed to by Coxe and Gerry ceased to exist.

Given that the National Guard operates under both State and Federal orders and is considerably smaller than the whole American citizenry, it looks as though this is precisely what Gerry feared-- the American government destroyed the militia and raised an army upon its ruins.

I do not think that this was an act of tyranny, but it certainly proves that the National Guard is the antithesis of the militia.

To me the only "well regulated militia" that would directly serve the people would have to be formed and regulated by the individual states.

By definition, such a group would not be "militia"-- and while it might serve the people, as I believe that our standing military forces do, it would not and could not serve the same purposes as the citizen militia.

The militias and survival groups around the nation are not "well regulated" by any stretch of the imagination and are no more than private armies similar to those of war lords in feudal times IMO.

They are such in my opinion as well-- especially given how strongly that fundamentalist religion and racism governs their ideologies. I would even go so far as to say that these groups are more dangerous to American lives and liberty than our current government-- and are the last people I would want "securing my liberties" in the event that our current government becomes tyrannical.

In order for America to revive the practice of the "well-regulated militia", we would need to change a good deal of our cultural practices and attitudes. We would need to begin weapons training at an early age-- which some families still do privately-- and paramilitary drilling around the age when our children enter Junior High. (I believe this can be done without sacrificing either childhood or proper academic education.) We would have to learn to be both far more comfortable with weaponry and more responsible in our handling of it-- and I believe that we would have to begin either subsidizing weapons purchases or issuing weapons directly at government expense.

And, quite frankly, for any of this to come together into a properly organized and motivated citizen militia, we would need to drastically oppose the culture of division and disunity that our political parties are promoting and exploiting, as well as re-evaluate our understanding of the balance between freedom and duty.

I do not think that we will have a significant militia any time soon in the absence of overwhelming external threat; in the meantime, however, I must still wholly support the means by which such a militia might be formed and supplied. In general principle, I also must support the right of private citizens to defend themselves and their property and their right to do so with the most effective weapons at our disposal.

 

[Goobieman]

I do not think that we will have a significant militia any time soon in the absence of overwhelming external threat; in the meantime, however, I must still wholly support the means by which such a militia might be formed and supplied. In general principle, I also must support the right of private citizens to defend themselves and their property and their right to do so with the most effective weapons at our disposal.

Yes. What you said.

The only issue I have is with your (at least) tacit acceptance of CCW permits. I find it outragrous that we must ask the government permission to exercise our right to self-defense through the exercise of the right to arms.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I find it outrageous that we must ask the government permission to exercise our right to self-defense through the exercise of the right to arms.

You don't need a permit to wear your guns outside your belt.

I am generally opposed to laws prohibiting concealed carry without a permit, but I do not consider them an infringment on our right to keep and bear arms; the guns I consider the most important would never fit in your pocket anyway.

 

[bnr65432]

I support the constitution
therfor some limits on guns none on free speech
The constitution only says that people in an organized militia have the right
to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And states clearly there are no restrictions on free speech

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The constitution only says that people in an organized militia have the right to bear arms

It says no such thing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State-- which is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If they'd wished to state that only members of a well-regulated militia were to be armed, they'd have said so. If you claim that the National Guard or the Reserves are "the militia"-- which would have been impossible at the time of the framing of the Constitution-- then why would our Founding Fathers need to protect the right of government agents to keep and bear arms?

 

[jamesrage]

I support the constitution
therfor some limits on guns none on free speech
The constitution only says that people in an organized militia have the right
to bear arms

You sure do have a weird way of of interpreting the constitution.If the constition only said that a orginized malitia shall have the right to bear arms then why in the hell does it say this part?" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"Why would they need to include "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" if they only ment that malitias shall have the right to bear arms?

 

[jamesrage]

I decided to resurrect this topic since there are new members.

 

[Columbusite]

I do not beleave free speech gives one the right to slander someone or defame their character,in other words if you get sued for these things then you do not have no protection.

But what will poor Michael Savage do?

I think we have different meanings of "freedom of speech". I take it to mean speaking your honest opinion, no matter what that may be. Flag-burning, sure if you want to. This isn't China where you get hauled off the streets and thrown into jail or probably much worse for burning a flag. If you can't have the option to do so it's hardly a free country and goes against one of the very freedoms that makes America America.

 

[jamesrage]

But what will poor Michael Savage do?

I think we have different meanings of "freedom of speech". I take it to mean speaking your honest opinion, no matter what that may be. Flag-burning, sure if you want to. This isn't China where you get hauled off the streets and thrown into jail or probably much worse for burning a flag. If you can't have the option to do so it's hardly a free country and goes against one of the very freedoms that makes America America.

Freedom of speech is not a get out of jail free card for inciting riots,murder or any other criminal activity.Freedom of speech is not a get out of jail free card for obstructing,intemidating or trying to silence others.I do find it odd that the poll sesults are not balanced.I thought for sure the same number of people who voted for " support the right to own firearms with out any restricitons" would have voted for " support the right of free speech with out any restrictions." apparently this shows that people do not view certian rights as having equal value.

 

[American]

All liberals should be banned from owning firearms, and speaking unless spoken to. :mrgreen:

 

[jonathanC.]

I feel our Government has polluted the Constitution of these United States while we have set by with are thumbs up our butts!!
The 1st amendment guarantees all Americans the right to bear arms, period. If some one has committed a crime than that person goes to jail when they commit another, we don't take away peoples rights because they break a law. If they are mentally incapable thats a different story, other than that they are of sound mind they are protected by the 1st.
We see the second being trampled also in San Fran. they are starting to call it hate speech and have for some time when preachers preach against homosexuality and such. In Canada it is already illegal to do so, it won't be long before its law here just wait, the more of them in government the more our government will become corrupt.

Use to they couldn't take any money out of your check unless you signed for it, now it seems everyone can take money from your check before you get it.

The judge on Fox has written a book about how the government is taking away our Constitutional rights, I haven't read it yet, I hear its a good read about this subject.
We need to make changes in government before its to late.

 

[jamesrage]

I feel our Government has polluted the Constitution of these United States while we have set by with are thumbs up our butts!!
The 1st amendment guarantees all Americans the right to bear arms, period. If some one has committed a crime than that person goes to jail when they commit another, we don't take away peoples rights because they break a law. If they are mentally incapable thats a different story, other than that they are of sound mind they are protected by the 1st.
We see the second being trampled also in San Fran. they are starting to call it hate speech and have for some time when preachers preach against homosexuality and such. In Canada it is already illegal to do so, it won't be long before its law here just wait, the more of them in government the more our government will become corrupt.

Use to they couldn't take any money out of your check unless you signed for it, now it seems everyone can take money from your check before you get it.

The judge on Fox has written a book about how the government is taking away our Constitutional rights, I haven't read it yet, I hear its a good read about this subject.
We need to make changes in government before its to late.

It is one thing to take away rights from criminals and mentally incapable people and it is a totally different thing when rights start being taken away from law abiding citizens.

Amazing how people harp on how free speech gives them the right to obstruct someone from doing their job and how it gives them a right to burn flags and commit sedition,but at the same time they want heavy restrictions on firearms or firearms to be banned while shouting that it is american to be seditious.

When these rats start taking away our right to bear arms,they will take away our other rights since we will not be armed.

 

[Columbusite]

Freedom of speech is not a get out of jail free card for inciting riots,murder or any other criminal activity.Freedom of speech is not a get out of jail free card for obstructing,intemidating or trying to silence others.I do find it odd that the poll sesults are not balanced.I thought for sure the same number of people who voted for " support the right to own firearms with out any restricitons" would have voted for " support the right of free speech with out any restrictions." apparently this shows that people do not view certian rights as having equal value.

Like I said, we're talking about different versions. You can't incite murder and then not be a part of it, though mob bosses would love that. I'm talking about expressing your honest opinion regardless of what that may be. I don't know how you'd enforce prevention of intimidation, etc. What if I found your excellent arguments intimidating? Should they be illegal? What does "trying to silence others" entail? If you do so by saying "one word of _ and I'll kill you" I agree that that is not acceptable. As far as inciting criminal activity I think it depends on what. Would advocating decriminalization of marijuana be on that list? I basically err on the side of more freedom of speech than less. I just feel that the 1st Amendment is too important to be messed with much.

As far as gun rights I think you should be able to own guns if you're a, law abiding, sane citizen, but uzis, rocket launchers, etc fall under "arms" do they not? Which is why I put some restrictions, but I am against gun control in general. Here in Columbus we had a concealed carry law passed which allows people to, obviously, carry their gun with them. While there was some opposition you don't hear about people going around shooting each other day and night anymore than they already do. I think that this will actually make things safer, if anything.

 

[Columbusite]

Amazing how people harp on how free speech gives them the right to obstruct someone from doing their job and how it gives them a right to burn flags

What don't you get about flag-burning? You can't claim to have freedom of speech and then lock someone up because you don't agree with their message. Use some common sense please?

 

[jamesrage]

Like I said, we're talking about different versions. You can't incite murder and then not be a part of it, though mob bosses would love that. I'm talking about expressing your honest opinion regardless of what that may be. I don't know how you'd enforce prevention of intimidation, etc. What if I found your excellent arguments intimidating? Should they be illegal? What does "trying to silence others" entail? If you do so by saying "one word of _ and I'll kill you" I agree that that is not acceptable. As far as inciting criminal activity I think it depends on what. Would advocating decriminalization of marijuana be on that list? I basically err on the side of more freedom of speech than less. I just feel that the 1st Amendment is too important to be messed with much.

What I mean by intimidation is a agry mob standing outisde a place of business or a school trying to intimidate people to not show up to do their job.

As far as gun rights I think you should be able to own guns if you're a, law abiding, sane citizen, but uzis, rocket launchers, etc fall under "arms" do they not? Which is why I put some restrictions, but I am against gun control in general. Here in Columbus we had a concealed carry law passed which allows people to, obviously, carry their gun with them. While there was some opposition you don't hear about people going around shooting each other day and night anymore than they already do. I think that this will actually make things safer, if anything.

I beleave that as law abiding and sane citizens we should be able to own uzis,rocket launchers and and other fire arms the military and police have.We have to be able to stand up the government if it ever becomes currupt and turns on it's people.People armed with shot guns are not going to be able to stand up to soldiers,marines and police who are armed with automatic weapons.