For every study hatuey can cite promoting gun control as crime control I can post as many in opposition such as More Guns Less crime by Lott. What is funny is that most of the anti gun studies were started by anti gunners while many of the studies that support gun ownship were also started by anti gunners such as Lott and Kleck who saw the light
Another Example is Paxton Quigley who was a militant gun hater who investigated why so many women were buying guns --she is now a major league proponent of gun ownership.
and we have those studies that tried to prove that the clinton gun ban helped things and turned out it the best they could find was no impact whatsoever (NEJoM)
In other words, the issue is unsettled. We do have lots of empirical evidence of how gun control only disarms victims which is why DC and Chicago experienced more crime after handgun bans were imposed
can you find one study where a pro gunner studied the issue and came to conclude guns needed to be banned?
I was a classmate of Ian Ayers at Yale (81) he was a very good scholar but not one I'd trust as objective. People like him are the sort of people who hate guns because its a form of power he doesn't know much about and cannot control
The reality is that there are reasonable restrictions and 'infringements' on the use of free speech. These restrictions are regulated by government bodies, laws etc. From the FCC to the ability to sue people for slander - the restrictions on 'free speech' are there.
The question is whether they really do constitute "restrictions on speech" though.
The airwaves are owned by the public and are a scarce resource. So regulating who can speak on them isn't really a "restrction on free speech" since it's not really free in the first place (if it were, there would be nothing but static).
Slander doesn't restrict speech. You can say whatever you want. If you damage the reputation of a private person, though, you can be sued. It's the damage, not the speech, that is actionable. A criminal law against slander would be unconstitutional, as it involves the government deciding what's allowable based on the content of the speech.
I think the basis for the argument against any restrictions on free speech is a matter of being able to say whatever you want without the possibility of being held liable for your words. Seeing as that would have massive adverse effects on our society, we have reasonable limitations on free speech.
I know what you mean, and I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that it's too simplistic to imply that because there are these limits on freedom of speech that this means that other limits are acceptable, or that "freedom of speech" isn't real, or something like that. In everyday parlance, we know that freedom of speech means, and that there are exceptions. No need to point it out (except perhaps on this thread).
... and refers to the militia, not the right to arms.The word "regulated" actually appears in the text of the second amendment...
... and refers to the militia, not the right to arms.
What's your point?
The term used in the amendment, is "arms".Should we make a difference between:
collecting historical rifels and guns
hunting weapons
guns for self protection
weapons for crime and terrorist activity. Here resonalbe conservatives should be against this last issue, please.
Yes. Time, place, manner. Public property.Permits need to be issued for things like mass protests or parades on public property, so as to ensure the police authorities can be adequately prepared to streamline daily commerce.
There's absolutely no sound argument for this, or its constitutionality.Assault weapons (including military brand sharpshooters) should require psychological testing and licensing and be subject to temporary bans under the advisement of local police authorities.
What, exactly, is the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a a theater?There are already reasonable infringements on your 1st amendment rights. Try screaming fire in a theater, try speaking untruths about a person, try saying you want to kill somebody etc. You will get sued, fined and a few knocks on your door. This poll is a false dichotomy.
What, exactly, is the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a a theater?
What, exactly, is the 2nd amendment equivelant to slander? Libel?
Based on what, exactly?You've argued that there should be the same kind of measures regulating free speech as there are for guns. This is ridiculous and would be laughed out of a court room in every state.
The reality is that any restriction on same is a restriction on something that does not fall under 'free pseech'. For any similar restrictions to be applicable to the 2nd, the actions in question would have to similarly fall outside the right to arms.The reality is that there are reasonable restrictions and 'infringements' on the use of free speech.
Which are these supposed to relate to, and how, exactly, do they relate?Owning a cannon?
Walking into a courtroom with a sidearm?
You dont have to have any relationship whatsoever to the miliita in order to exercise the right to arms under the protection of the 2nd.Which militia? The one you have to be a member of to own a gun?
Which are these supposed to relate to, and how, exactly, do they relate?
You dont have to have any relationship whatsoever to the miliita in order to exercise the right to arms under the protection of the 2nd.
If you're going to argue that certain examples of how free speech can be restricted illustrate how the right to arms can be restricted, then you have to compare similar circumstances for the comparison to have any meaning.They relate in general. They are reasonable restrictions. There's no one-to-one correspondence with speech restrictions, nor should there be.
Guns are not allowed in courtooms, and the restrcition on same does not violate the 2nd amendment, because, like free speech, you do no thave an unfettered or unrestrcited right to exercise -any- given right on public property.
Well, OK, but I'm not sure how this means anything, especially when trying to create an argument that supports restricting simple ownership/possession/use on something other than public property.Thanks for doing it for me.
Well, OK, but I'm not sure how this means anything, especially when trying to create an argument that supports restricting simple ownership/possession/use on something other than public property.
Sorry -- misunderstood yor question.But you think it's okay to restrict gun possession on public property?
I
You can't teach the ignorant
I really don't know how to say this without being rude...but you are psychotic :shock:
Gun haters are haters pure and simple. They hate freedom, and they especially hate people who don't buy into their idiotic world view
Nothing screams out louder that you lost then psychobabbling such a silly insult.
You dish it out pretty good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?