Right to bear arms vs. right to fire

[A.Nonymous]

None of those things are restricted. There are CONSEQUENCES if you don't follow the rules(basically, don't hurt anyone else! that's it!). If you don't understand this, it's not my problem to teach you.

How is punishing someone for their speech, not restricting it? Certainly the courts would disagree with you.

I go around town putting up signs that say Jim Bob is a pedophile. The feds fine me for slander (assuming Jim Bob really isn't a pedophile). I go around town putting up signs that say "The government sucks". The feds fine me for it. How is the former not a case of restricting speech, but the latter is? Any time you punish someone for their speech you're restricting it.

If you disagree with me, then please tell me how you restrict speech if it doesn't involve punishing people for what they say?

 

[IOWA]

How is punishing someone for their speech, not restricting it? Certainly the courts would disagree with you.

I go around town putting up signs that say Jim Bob is a pedophile. The feds fine me for slander (assuming Jim Bob really isn't a pedophile). I go around town putting up signs that say "The government sucks". The feds fine me for it. How is the former not a case of restricting speech, but the latter is? Any time you punish someone for their speech you're restricting it.

If you disagree with me, then please tell me how you restrict speech if it doesn't involve punishing people for what they say?

You don't restrict speech, because it's an INALIENABLE right. It can't be taken away. Period. What about that do you not understand?

...If you don't like our constitution, move out of the country.

 

[batgeek]

the fact that you can go out the next day and say(or post your signs again) what you said before.

your free speech is in no way restricted. though you still have to deal with the consequences of your free speech, every time you do it.

pretty simple. really. it's not that hard of a concept to understand.

 

[A.Nonymous]

You don't restrict speech, because it's an INALIENABLE right. It can't be taken away. Period. What about that do you not understand?

...If you don't like our constitution, move out of the country.

The Constitution and several hundred years of legal precedence disagree with you. Have you read the First Amendment?
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. (emphasis mine)

Clearly our founding fathers thought it was very possible that Congress could abridge the freedom of speech if they chose to. Therefore they explicitly forbade it in the First Amendment. Any time you make a law, rule, regulation, etc... that says "Thou shalt not XYZ" you are restricting that activity.

 

[IOWA]

The Constitution and several hundred years of legal precedence disagree with you. Have you read the First Amendment?
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. (emphasis mine)

Clearly our founding fathers thought it was very possible that Congress could abridge the freedom of speech if they chose to. Therefore they explicitly forbade it in the First Amendment. Any time you make a law, rule, regulation, etc... that says "Thou shalt not XYZ" you are restricting that activity.

Glad to see we're in the presence of a constitutional scholar!

WOW! You're talented, so far in this VERY thread you've made references to understanding how sociopaths work, and what the founder fathers intended when they were writing the constitution! You're also a legal scholar for those oh so enlightening interpretations that nobody else on the planet ever came up with! You sir are a gentlemen and a scholar.

But yeah, CLEARLY any rule or law or consequence "Thou shalt not XYZ" is a violation of our rights and should be abolished immediately no matter who else's rights get infringed or hurt!

EDIT: And I'll say it just ONE more time. A person's rights END where another persons RIGHTS begin.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Glad to see we're in the presence of a constitutional scholar!

WOW! You're talented, so far in this VERY thread you've made references to understanding how sociopaths work, and what the founder fathers intended when they were writing the constitution! You're also a legal scholar for those oh so enlightening interpretations that nobody else on the planet ever came up with! You sir are a gentlemen and a scholar.

But yeah, CLEARLY any rule or law or consequence "Thou shalt not XYZ" is a violation of our rights and should be abolished immediately no matter who else's rights get infringed or hurt!

EDIT: And I'll say it just ONE more time. A person's rights END where another persons RIGHTS begin.

Once again, you've completely ignored my point. Either that or I'm failing to make it clearly. The First Amendment plainly says "Congress shall make now law........abridging the freedom of speech." Now you argue that it is impossible to abridge the freedom of speech in the first place. From a legal perspective you cannot do it if you want to. Fine. Let's say you're right. It's impossible to abridge freedom of speech. Why in the world does the Constitution forbid something that is impossible to do in the first place? Please study what freedom of speech in the US really means. We have no rights if we don't understand them.

The fact is it is possible for a government to abridge speech. Governments do it every day in countries like Iran, China or North Korea. When they toss someone in jail for stating their political opinions, what do human rights groups scream at them for? Prohibiting freedom of speech.

So, since the feds are clearly barred from abridging freedom of speech and it is, in practice, abridged in many different situations, why should guns be any different?

 

[IOWA]

Once again, you've completely ignored my point. Either that or I'm failing to make it clearly. The First Amendment plainly says "Congress shall make now law........abridging the freedom of speech." Now you argue that it is impossible to abridge the freedom of speech in the first place. From a legal perspective you cannot do it if you want to. Fine. Let's say you're right. It's impossible to abridge freedom of speech. Why in the world does the Constitution forbid something that is impossible to do in the first place? Please study what freedom of speech in the US really means. We have no rights if we don't understand them.

The fact is it is possible for a government to abridge speech. Governments do it every day in countries like Iran, China or North Korea. When they toss someone in jail for stating their political opinions, what do human rights groups scream at them for? Prohibiting freedom of speech.

So, since the feds are clearly barred from abridging freedom of speech and it is, in practice, abridged in many different situations, why should guns be any different?

So now political speech is somehow equivalent to hurting someone. Interesting perspective.

Perhaps you're failing to realize it's not the speech that's being restricted, it's what harm is being done with the speech to other individuals. They are not the same thing.

Other governments are not THIS government.

 

[batgeek]

Perhaps you're failing to realize it's not the speech that's being restricted, it's the potential harm that can be done due to the speech that is trying to be avoided.

FIFY.

10 characters

 

[OutofDate1980]

...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. (emphasis mine)...

I guess porn is not Freedom of Speech, as it may offend. It may depend on how authority defines freedom of speech or the press.

 

[Member243850]

I meant no offense. Logical fallacies like this annoy me. It's one of my pet peeves. I apologize if I offended you.

Hey!

No worries man!

I am sorry if I offended you too!

I got a bit too sensitive in any event so it is not your fault really

I can get a bit stupido at times lol

I am glad there are no hard feelings!!

Thanks for being cool!

Keep well bud

Regards

Stinky!

 

[A.Nonymous]

So now political speech is somehow equivalent to hurting someone. Interesting perspective.

Perhaps you're failing to realize it's not the speech that's being restricted, it's what harm is being done with the speech to other individuals. They are not the same thing.

Other governments are not THIS government.

So there's no way to restrict speech. Fine. Congress passes a law tomorrow that says you will be fined $100 for saying anything derogatory about the President. Is this law legal? If not, why not?

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

So there's no way to restrict speech. Fine. Congress passes a law tomorrow that says you will be fined $100 for saying anything derogatory about the President. Is this law legal? If not, why not?

It is illegal, you have a right to your opinion and to express that opinion. My saying "Obama sucks so bad he is the worst president this country has EVER had" (which by the way is my real sentiment) is an exercise in free speech, to make that illegal would be tantamount to passing a law that prohibits you from saying anything bad about someone even if it is true.

If a statement is true or at least reasonably formulated based on opinion it is not slander or liable.

 

[OutofDate1980]

It is illegal, you have a right to your opinion and to express that opinion. My saying "Obama sucks so bad he is the worst president this country has EVER had" (which by the way is my real sentiment) is an exercise in free speech, to make that illegal would be tantamount to passing a law that prohibits you from saying anything bad about someone even if it is true.

If a statement is true or at least reasonably formulated based on opinion it is not slander or liable.

Maybe just brush-off a old law. Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sedition Act (officially An Act in Addition to the Act Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States"; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 (the day before Adams' presidential term was to end).

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Maybe just brush-off a old law. Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sedition Act (officially An Act in Addition to the Act Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States"; ch. 74, 1 Stat. 596) made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 (the day before Adams' presidential term was to end).

An obvious and blatant abuse of power and a violation of the 1st amendment. Frankly. I'm surprised Obama hasn't tried re-instating it!

 

[ElasticNinja]

An obvious and blatant abuse of power and a violation of the 1st amendment. Frankly. I'm surprised Obama hasn't tried re-instating it!

I think you are getting Obama and GWB mixed up, heh

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

I think you are getting Obama and GWB mixed up, heh

No, not at all!

Although I can list a few presidents who might have tried it if they thought they could get away with it.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Too many people just don't really understand "Freedom"...what it means, how it works, what it costs, or anything....its pathetic.

Freedoms (or rights) stop being freedoms when they start to restrict the freedom (or rights) of others...

Its sort of a yin/yang thing that requires balance.



You see...we started down this slippery slope when we started passing laws to "protect us from us". This began quite some time ago...and got way out of hand in the 1880's, and we ended up where we are now....which is chasing our tail.

Pass laws to protect Freedom...because if we pass many more laws in the name of "safety"...there will be no Freedom left.

 

[FJR1300]

There are are 919,831 concealed weapon permit holders in Florida, none of them killed anyone wrongfully today, or the day before, or the day before that, etc,etc going back to the February killing of Trayvon Martin and that case is not settled yet. And then we go back to the norm of no killings for quite some time (not counting the accidental discharge that killed a woman in a church by a guy that happened to be a CWP holder as the license was irrelevant to the death).

The story is the same in other states where concealed carry is legal. Far, far more criminals shoot people than legal concealed weapon carriers.

Point is that to be scared of people carrying a concealed firearm doesn't make statistical sense. The fear is all based on "what ifs" and "I think".

Saying that you would never put yourself in a situation where you would need to kill someone in self-defense is naive at best. Criminals put you in the situation and it happens to people just like you and I every single day, women have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped in their lifetime. Matter of fact we just had one attacked and sexually assaulted at ten in the morning in a park in Tampa. Unless you lock yourself in your house you cannot predict if or when a criminal might attack you...good neighborhood, bad neighborhood, makes no difference.

If a President of the US can get shot with all of the security and precautions in place that he had (Reagan) it could only be foolish to think that regular Joes like us can avoid a criminal intent on doing us harm.

How many times has a CWP holder escalated a heated argument by drawing his weapon? Not enough times to register beyond tenths or hunderedths of a percentage point. When making a statement about all CWP holders we have to look at the statistics for all CWP holders, not just our own individual and very limited exposure.

 

[A.Nonymous]

There are are 919,831 concealed weapon permit holders in Florida, none of them killed anyone wrongfully today, or the day before, or the day before that, etc,etc going back to the February killing of Trayvon Martin and that case is not settled yet. And then we go back to the norm of no killings for quite some time (not counting the accidental discharge that killed a woman in a church by a guy that happened to be a CWP holder as the license was irrelevant to the death).

The story is the same in other states where concealed carry is legal. Far, far more criminals shoot people than legal concealed weapon carriers.

Point is that to be scared of people carrying a concealed firearm doesn't make statistical sense. The fear is all based on "what ifs" and "I think".

Saying that you would never put yourself in a situation where you would need to kill someone in self-defense is naive at best. Criminals put you in the situation and it happens to people just like you and I every single day, women have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped in their lifetime. Matter of fact we just had one attacked and sexually assaulted at ten in the morning in a park in Tampa. Unless you lock yourself in your house you cannot predict if or when a criminal might attack you...good neighborhood, bad neighborhood, makes no difference.

If a President of the US can get shot with all of the security and precautions in place that he had (Reagan) it could only be foolish to think that regular Joes like us can avoid a criminal intent on doing us harm.

How many times has a CWP holder escalated a heated argument by drawing his weapon? Not enough times to register beyond tenths or hunderedths of a percentage point. When making a statement about all CWP holders we have to look at the statistics for all CWP holders, not just our own individual and very limited exposure.

It's a bit specious to compare the President to the average joe. The President needs a highly trained and highly coordinated security detail to keep him safe. Would you argue that everyone needs this as well? Certainly not. It's an apples to oranges argument.

 

[FJR1300]

It's a bit specious to compare the President to the average joe. The President needs a highly trained and highly coordinated security detail to keep him safe. Would you argue that everyone needs this as well? Certainly not. It's an apples to oranges argument.

You've missed the point entirely; if even he cannot avoid being shot then how could a regular citizen possibly say that they can avoid situations where they might be attacked? Innocent citizens are attacked and suffer great bodily injury or death everyday and I'm sure that if they knew it was going to happen they would have avoided it. That's the point, we can't predict if and when it will happen no matter how cautious we are.

Other than that, that's all you got out of the entire post? You seem to have picked a minor point to respond to whilst ignoring the glaring fact that concealed weapon carriers are statistically, by a tremendous margin, not a danger to the general public. Challenging your assertion that they are in fact a threat to yourself and the general public.

 

[A.Nonymous]

A regular citizen is not nearly at risk of an attack as the President is. If Obama walked down the streets of any big city unguarded he's liable to get his ass kicked if he's recognized because there are nutjobs who think he's the anti-Christ or something. I can walk down the same street without any fear because no one knows who I am and no one has a beef with me.

I have many friends who carry concealed weapons. I know a few of them who have pulled their weapons in anger or road rage incidents, etc.... I don't know of any of them who have ever pulled their weapons for legitimate purposes. Yet we have people like Trayvon who are dead because of a concealed weapon and people who are killed like the woman you mentioned because someone was carrying a concealed weapon (and in a church where said weapons are banned in most states). So their is at least some danger there. Statistically, how many lives are saved because someone with a concealed weapon intervenes?

 

[Ridgerunner665]

In the words of Reagan....liberals aren't bad people, its just that they know so many things which just aren't true.

That makes it a waste of time and energy to argue with one.

Carrying a weapon doesn't hurt anybody...never has, never will.

Therefore, carrying a weapon should never be restricted...however, when the weapon is in the hand it can be used and only then can it be considered dangerous...and having a weapon in the hand is restricted (there are laws against brandishing).

And no...he clearly does not understand or appreciate living in a free society.

Anybody who thinks our Constitution should be restricted obviously doesn't pay attention to history very well...

You know the old saying...the roads to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[FJR1300]

A regular citizen is not nearly at risk of an attack as the President is. If Obama walked down the streets of any big city unguarded he's liable to get his ass kicked if he's recognized because there are nutjobs who think he's the anti-Christ or something. I can walk down the same street without any fear because no one knows who I am and no one has a beef with me.

I have many friends who carry concealed weapons. I know a few of them who have pulled their weapons in anger or road rage incidents, etc.... I don't know of any of them who have ever pulled their weapons for legitimate purposes. Yet we have people like Trayvon who are dead because of a concealed weapon and people who are killed like the woman you mentioned because someone was carrying a concealed weapon (and in a church where said weapons are banned in most states). So their is at least some danger there. Statistically, how many lives are saved because someone with a concealed weapon intervenes?

I have to hand it to you, you are quite adept at taking a simple premise and turning it into a backwards convoluted idea to fit your own agenda.
You steadfastly refuse to look at hard data and instead keep asserting that since you have personally witnessed an event that it must hold true for the entire sampling. You haven't gathered enough data to even come close to accepted norms for a statistical analysis let alone draw conclusions from it.

I'll try again, although I'm starting to think that you're either being facetious or trying to play devil's advocate just for kicks at the least.

The FBI's data indicates that 1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime and rape is grossly under-reported by estimates of 75% - 90%. Do you think that Mrs. Obama's risk is higher than that? The President very rarely becomes a crime victim, because he is so well protected. In spite of this fact several Presidents have still become crime victims, so how safe is the average citizen with no such protections?

What makes you so different than the millions of citizens that have been violently attacked? It hasn't happened yet so it can never happen to you? If you can guarantee your methods to work for every citizen in the country, you'll be a multi-billionaire.

Nationwide in 2010, there were an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes. How many attempts of violent crime against the President occurred? Yet you claim that the President is at more risk of being attacked than a regular citizen? There are 1.2 million people that disagree with you.

The violent crime rate in 2010 was 403.6 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants.

So because no-one has a beef with you, you aren't subject to being the victim of a violent crime? All of those 1.2 million victims had a beef with someone? C'mon man, you're being completely disingenuous.

FBI

 

[batgeek]

WHAT?!?!?! STATISTICS?!?!?! NO WAY!!!!!

let's just continue to use "what if" scenarios. it makes it more fun!

 

[OutofDate1980]

There are are 919,831 concealed weapon permit holders in Florida, none of them killed anyone wrongfully today, or the day before, or the day before that, etc,etc going back to the February killing of Trayvon Martin and that case is not settled yet. And then we go back to the norm of no killings for quite some time (not counting the accidental discharge that killed a woman in a church by a guy that happened to be a CWP holder as the license was irrelevant to the death).....

In the Mass Shooting by CW. VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers

Circumstances: On September 22, 2007, Guillermo Zarabozo and Kirby Archer hired Jake Branam, captain of the 47-foot charter boat Joe Cool, his wife and mother of his two children Kelley Branam, and crew mates Scott Gamble and Samuel Kairy to take them from Miami Beach to Bimini in the Bahamas. When the boat did not return toFlorida, the Coast Guard was contacted and they found the Joe Cool abandoned roughly 30 miles north of Cuba. Zarabozo and Archer were found the next morning on an inflatable lifeboat about 12 miles away from the Joe Cool. Zarabozo claimed that Cuban hijackers had seized the boat at sea and killed the crew. Archer eventually confessed to killing the Branams on the fly bridge of the boat while Zarabozo killed Gamble and Kairy in the cabin below. Zarabozo worked for private investigation and security companies and had a concealed handgun permit. Four days before chartering the Joe Cool, Zarabozo was accepted as an applicant to become a Miami-Dade police officer. Zarabozo was found guilty of the four murders and sentenced to five consecutive terms of life imprisonment and an additional 85 years imprisonment to be served consecutively to the life sentences for the first-degree murders of the crew of the Joe Cool.