• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
ThePlayDrive said:
And mental health professionals can certainly make a valid case. You haven't proven that they can't.
Click to expand...
Dude, they rarely agree with each other. That's all you need to know.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Dude, if that were true, there wouldn't be so much consensus among them.
Click to expand...
You cannot subject the extent of a right to consensus. You must use the necessary and proper process of figuring out what the NEED for a limit is and if it is PROPER to create the law according the the U.S.C.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You cannot subject the extent of a right to consensus. You must use the necessary and proper process of figuring out what the NEED for a limit is and if it is PROPER to create the law according the the U.S.C.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there would be people who don't think shouting "fire" in a theater is dangerous either, but the consensus is that it is. Consensus is what we have. And yeah, I agree about the necessary and proper clause. Experts on whatever topic is at hand are the most qualified to determine what is necessary and proper to solve a problem. In this case, experts are mental health professionals.

You're essentially arguing "if I don't think it's necessary, it isn't and if you disagree you're anti-second amendment". That's not an argument.

I'll re-post this again since you haven't answered it:

ThePlayDrive said:
A paranoid schizophrenic with delusions and consistent threats of violence is not "subjectively" violent and I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree. An adult with the mental capacity of a 2 year old is also not subjectively incompetent. You don't seem to understand that mental health professionals aren't just guessing when they make diagnoses, commit patients and make other decisions. There are actual standards. Like grip said earlier, there should be limits to prevent people like Loughner from obtaining weapons.

Moreover, you do not seem to understand that limiting rights is not an infringement of rights.

Again, you see anyone who disagrees with you on limits as "anti-second" and that just isn't so.
Click to expand...
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm sure there would be people who don't think shouting "fire" in a theater is dangerous either, but the consensus is that it is. Consensus is what we have. And yeah, I agree about the necessary and proper clause. Experts on whatever topic is at hand are the most qualified to determine what is necessary and proper to solve a problem. In this case, experts are mental health professionals.

You're essentially arguing "if I don't think it's necessary, it isn't and if you disagree you're anti-second amendment". That's not an argument.

I'll re-post this again since you haven't answered it:
Click to expand...
It's not MY argument, it's the way things are supposed to work. The constitution is based on consensus and neither is the "shouting fire argument". I've got to make a run in a minute but I'll come back and explain the shouting fire case to you later.
 
jimbo said:
First round being a rubber bullet may be the silliest suggestion on this thread. If that was my first round, I would rely on a double tap. The only chance you would have with a rubber bullet would be the criminal laughing himself to death.

Personally, I would rather have a box of rocks than my first round being non lethal.
Click to expand...

Many people have a movie-fantasy view about guns and their fighting off hordes of terrorists or some action shootout with evildoers in their home. It is just that, fantasy. In those fantascies they invision being heroic for killing bad people like an action hero. Unfortunately, even many police officers have such view. Among my jobs is to train officers to think otherwise and instead real applications and correct usages of firearms in real-world terms.

However, it is more dangerous a view for citizens rather than officers. Officers understand the consequences of shooting someone dead and of doing so wrongly. Citizens don't and the overwhelming number of gun-deaths in homes are so-called "accidental" deaths.


Your comment about preferring rocks over a rubber bullet then backed up by metal bullets just indicates your fantasy only allows senarios of killing armed assailants as an action hero and no understand of mental-physical reaction times, impact force or any any reality other than you as the action hero.

Unlike your mono-load view, my firearms are loaded each with a variety of ammo, which I will change for the circumstances of carry of potential usage. For example, 1st round rubber bullet, then hollow point (stopping power) and the next steel jacketed (for penetration) etc. That is my 1911 45s. For shotguns, the diversity is even greater. But, then, unlike you, I can fire multiple rounds and even go through multiple clips rather quickly and accurately - the latter being more important.

Otherwise for your comment expressing your opposition to multiple type rounds in your firearm, I gather you have a particularly weak finger and can only manage pulling off one shot every few seconds and therefore you couldn't to fire a second lethal round for many seconds.

At close range any marksman could not only knock anyone down with a rubber bullet, but kill someone with one. You really don't know what you're talking about comparing a rock to a rubber bullet. They are considered "semi lethal." Depends where they hit and at what velocity.

I seriously doubt you'll ever had the situation where you are Matt Dillon in a quick draw contest with the villian, but that's what you envision.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
It's not MY argument, it's the way things are supposed to work. The constitution is based on consensus and neither is the "shouting fire argument". I've got to make a run in a minute but I'll come back and explain the shouting fire case to you later.
Click to expand...
You don't need to explain anything to me. The government cannot punish speech unless it incites "imminent lawless action." Determining what speech meets such standards is based on a consensus and certain people will certainly object to the conclusions reached by such consensus. The same applies to determining what mental states meet the standards of someone being an imminent threat if they were able to own a gun.

Again, a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions and consistent threats of violence is not "subjectively" violent and I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree. An adult with the mental capacity of a 2 year old is also not subjectively incompetent. You don't seem to understand that mental health professionals aren't just guessing when they make diagnoses, commit patients and make other decisions. There are actual standards. Like grip said earlier, there should be limits to prevent people like Loughner from obtaining weapons.

You might be comfortable with those two people having guns, but I'm not interested in it.
 
Favorite: Shotgun is Saga 12 semi auto. Favorite round for it: old fashioned 00 buck.
Handgun is full frame Colt 1911 45 semi auto. Favorite round for it: ordinary steel jacketed
Long gun: Garrand M1 30.06. Favorite round for it: black tips

What most officers carry: 9mm Glock or Berreta. Some still carry revolvers - then usually 44 mags. A few prefer 45 semi-autos, but double action with first round.

For ankle backup most carry Berreta .380 - which I believe is a particularly bad choice. An alloy framed 38 sp with Crimson Trace would make more sense. But, then I believe a 45 is overwhelming superior to a 9mm despite the double capacity. A person only needs lots of bullets if they aren't taking time to make their shots count. It's easy enough to change a clip in that ultra rare shootout situation.

THE self defense consideration in a firearm is KNOCK DOWN power, not killing power. Only a person indifferent to anyone else's life also does not consider limiting penetration ability and less-than-lethal options.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
You don't need to explain anything to me. The government cannot punish speech unless it incites "imminent lawless action." Determining what speech meets such standards is based on a consensus and certain people will certainly object to the conclusions reached by such consensus. The same applies to determining what mental states meet the standards of someone being an imminent threat if they were able to own a gun.
Click to expand...
Obviously I do need to explain it because limits are not specifically about "immenent lawless action" in limiting free speech. There are very specific tests for protection such as SLAPP value, defamation, invasion of privacy, provocation to anger and "fighting words", and words that create a "clear and present danger" or "immenent threat". The common thread in all of this is that the words themselves are protected, however usage of with ill intent is not. For instance, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no danger can cause a panic and endangers the rights of those in proximity, yelling fire in a crowded theater that is on fire is perfectly legal. Same thing with firearms, a person who is not going to commit a crime is not a danger with a 10, 20, or 100 round magazine. The psych test is not enough, all it would take to infringe would be a psychologist who wants to end gun ownership finding for the state or.....as is the case with most gun laws an over broad definition of psychological disqualifications such as PTSD, or other broad spectrum afflictions. Simply owning a gun, same as speaking in a non-threatening Time/Place/Manner endangers no one therefore the right is protected.

Again, a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions and consistent threats of violence is not "subjectively" violent and I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree. An adult with the mental capacity of a 2 year old is also not subjectively incompetent. You don't seem to understand that mental health professionals aren't just guessing when they make diagnoses, commit patients and make other decisions. There are actual standards. Like grip said earlier, there should be limits to prevent people like Loughner from obtaining weapons.
Click to expand...
Are you a psychologist? I learn the subject as a hobby and have some family members with mental health issues, they are broad spectrum and even delusional mental disorders have a broad range, one can have delusions, even violent ones and not act upon them or be okay with medication. Your broad brush approach is grossly insufficient.
You might be comfortable with those two people having guns, but I'm not interested in it.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is not sufficient to restrict a right, neither is anyone else's. You MUST provide a necessary and proper argument, simply saying you aren't comfortable is not going to cut it. In the case of Laughner, it was obvious the kid was dangerous, the authorities charged with public safety turned a blind eye which led to the eventual shooting of Giffords and those in attendance of her public appearance. The gun didn't kill or injure anyone Laughner DID. Had he been barred gun ownership he would have found another way to do what he did, those with intent to injure tend to find ways of accomplishing their goals.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think Laughner is a good example for much in terms of gun regulations issues.

Accidental gun deaths by children, demented old people shooting kids for trespassing, people who shoot with the bullets not going anywhere near the target and hitting elsewhere, people who think it's ok to scare someone with their gun, and people shooting people only knowing the person they are shooting as a dark siloette that scare them - are all among reasons from some minimal required training, proof of competency and basic knowledge of gun laws.

It is amazing how many people don't know that merely pointing a gun at someone usually is felony assault with a deadly weapon or don't TRULY secure (rather only "hide") loaded firearms in a house with kids or that kids might visit.

Personally, I believe having a loaded firearm in a house with children that is not secured by a lock - unless the adult owner is literally carrying/wearing it, should be a criminal offense.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Obviously I do need to explain it because limits are not specifically about "immenent lawless action" in limiting free speech. There are very specific tests for protection such as SLAPP value, defamation, invasion of privacy, provocation to anger and "fighting words", and words that create a "clear and present danger" or "immenent threat".
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are tests to determine what should be limited and those tests are developed by consensus on what makes something dangerous. That's the same standard I'm talking about in regards to mental health.

The common thread in all of this is that the words themselves are protected, however usage of with ill intent is not. For instance, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no danger can cause a panic and endangers the rights of those in proximity, yelling fire in a crowded theater that is on fire is perfectly legal. Same thing with firearms, a person who is not going to commit a crime is not a danger with a 10, 20, or 100 round magazine. The psych test is not enough, all it would take to infringe would be a psychologist who wants to end gun ownership finding for the state or.....as is the case with most gun laws an over broad definition of psychological disqualifications such as PTSD, or other broad spectrum afflictions. Simply owning a gun, same as speaking in a non-threatening Time/Place/Manner endangers no one therefore the right is protected.
Click to expand...
Sure, that's your argument and it isn't the end all be all of the discussion as you try to make. Moreover, disagreeing with it doesn't make someone anti-second amendment or anti-gun.

In any case, there are people who I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree are a threat with a weapon. For example, a two year old. Now let's take an adult with the mental capacity of a two year old and give them a gun. That's a bad decision.

You are trying to say that only having weapons with certain intents and in certain situations is a problem. However, it's a fact that CERTAIN PEOPLE having a weapon is a problem - like a 2 year old or someone with their same mental capacity.

Are you a psychologist? I learn the subject as a hobby and have some family members with mental health issues, they are broad spectrum and even delusional mental disorders have a broad range, one can have delusions, even violent ones and not act upon them or be okay with medication. Your broad brush approach is grossly insufficient.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not a psychologist and I also have knowledge on the subject. I also agree with your comments about the broad spectrum which is why I said that PROFESSIONALS WITH THE MOST EVIDENCED BACKED ARGUMENTS SHOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS so that those who are not a danger to society are not unjustly restricted.

Moreover, you are trying to use the broad spectrum of mental disorders as evidence that NOBODY can be diagnosed as a threat to others by professionals. That just isn't the case. It's done all the time and when it can be done, that information should be used for law.

Your opinion is not sufficient to restrict a right, neither is anyone else's. You MUST provide a necessary and proper argument, simply saying you aren't comfortable is not going to cut it. In the case of Laughner, it was obvious the kid was dangerous, the authorities charged with public safety turned a blind eye which led to the eventual shooting of Giffords and those in attendance of her public appearance. The gun didn't kill or injure anyone Laughner DID. Had he been barred gun ownership he would have found another way to do what he did, those with intent to injure tend to find ways of accomplishing their goals.
Click to expand...
Do you NOT understand that I haven't argued rights should be limited based on my opinion? I said mental health professionals with the most evidenced backed arguments should be those who advise lawmakers and judges.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Exactly. There are tests to determine what should be limited and those tests are developed by consensus on what makes something dangerous. That's the same standard I'm talking about in regards to mental health.


Sure, that's your argument and it isn't the end all be all of the discussion as you try to make. Moreover, disagreeing with it doesn't make someone anti-second amendment or anti-gun.

In any case, there are people who I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree are a threat with a weapon. For example, a two year old. Now let's take an adult with the mental capacity of a two year old and give them a gun. That's a bad decision.

You are trying to say that only having weapons with certain intents and in certain situations is a problem. However, it's a fact that CERTAIN PEOPLE having a weapon is a problem - like a 2 year old or someone with their same mental capacity.


No, I'm not a psychologist and I also have knowledge on the subject. I also agree with your comments about the broad spectrum which is why I said that PROFESSIONALS WITH THE MOST EVIDENCED BACKED ARGUMENTS SHOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS so that those who are not a danger to society are not unjustly restricted.

Moreover, you are trying to use the broad spectrum of mental disorders as evidence that NOBODY can be diagnosed as a threat to others by professionals. That just isn't the case. It's done all the time and when it can be done, that information should be used for law.


Do you NOT understand that I haven't argued rights should be limited based on my opinion? I said mental health professionals with the most evidenced backed arguments should be those who advise lawmakers and judges.
Click to expand...
You don't form law due to "appeal to popularity" you don't understand my arguments or are trying to adapt them to fit your worldview. Either way I don't think you understand the subject.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You don't form law due to "appeal to popularity" you don't understand my arguments or are trying to adapt them to fit your worldview. Either way I don't think you understand the subject.
Click to expand...

Yes he does. You just don't like his response and have no response. In fact, many people are readily detectable as mentally or psycholoigcally unstable. In is not uncommon for those who teach conceal-carry classed to deny "passing" someone for such reasons or due to statements the person makes that appear to apply the person will be dangerous with a firearm.

A couple of times I have come across someone with a conceal-carry permit and then-and-there took away their handgun and recommended their permit be repealed to the state. I tried to be gentle towards both as it was due ot no fault of their own. In both instances it was very elderly people clearly suffering from dementia (Alzheimers) and both speaking and acting irrationally. Officers also have to deal with this with drivers. Lots of old folks in Florida and aging can be cruel in ways that then can endanger others if not addressed.

Law isn't built around platitudes requiring perfection. They should be written around reality.
 
joko104 said:
Yes he does. You just don't like his response and have no response. In fact, many people are readily detectable as mentally or psycholoigcally unstable. In is not uncommon for those who teach conceal-carry classed to deny "passing" someone for such reasons or due to statements the person makes that appear to apply the person will be dangerous with a firearm.

A couple of times I have come across someone with a conceal-carry permit and then-and-there took away their handgun and recommended their permit be repealed to the state. I tried to be gentle towards both as it was due ot no fault of their own. In both instances it was very elderly people clearly suffering from dementia (Alzheimers) and both speaking and acting irrationally. Officers also have to deal with this with drivers. Lots of old folks in Florida and aging can be cruel in ways that then can endanger others if not addressed.

Law isn't built around platitudes requiring perfection. They should be written around reality.
Click to expand...
If he understood my arguments he wouldn't be for broad psych testing. You do understand that an overbroad interpretation of his stance can be used to signifigantly reduce the number of people who could otherwise safely and legally carry right? There are politicians currently advocating expanding the definition of just such a thing.
 
joko104 said:
I highly suggest (and practice) that the FIRST round in a home defense firearm should be non-lethal (only rarely causing death) such as rubber bullets. It would be very, very rare that would not deter someone the extra second you need to fully wake up or fully realize the level of actual danger. It also provides a better legal defense in some situations. If someone keeps coming at you after you shoot them with a rubber bullet (or bean bag if a shotgun) you have a clearer claim that only deadly force would stop the person, that your pre-mindset is to NOT wanting to kill someone, and - of course - that you did at least something to avoid reckless endangerment by you in relation to your children.
Click to expand...

joko104 said:
If the intruder has a gun and suprises you - you die whether you have a gun or not. If you can't hit and knock someone down with a rubber bullet or bean bag, a metal bullet wouldn't do you any good either.

It is in fact known far more likely that shootings in a home most likely 1.) kill your own child 2.) is a child finding your gun and killing him/herself or a friend 3.) Kills a neighbor or friend and 4.) kills your spouse or yourself.

Also, depending on the state, you can't just kill an 11 year old burglarizing your house. Rubber bullets are a great defense in face of an minor aged, unarmed intruder. In fact, that unarmed intruder actually might still kill you, but if you're an mature adult man and the intruder an unarmed young teenager, a grand jury might not see it as "self defense" but a punitive killing - especially if you shot the kid multiple times with a para-military assault rifle.

A first-shot rubber bullet gives you more options and time to gather your senses. If you can't defend yourself in your home that way, the fact is you can't defense yourself otherwise.
Click to expand...

joko104 said:
The Constitution actually says the purpose of allowing firearms is to have an available militia in the event of a foreign invasion or otherwise needing a military at a time when the country had essentially no standing army nor anticipating maintaining one. As a literal interpretation, the government could outlaw any usage, display or unsecured firearm unless a militia is called up. People who push their rights as strictly constitutional right to have any weapon they want for any reason they want have a losing argument. Constitutional qualifier is ONLY for "militia" usage.

While I support gun ownership and as a fundamental human right to self defense, I also believe proof of competency and knowledge of relevant laws should go along with it. Too many people die by accidents and too many truly stupid, firearm's incompetent and demented people have firearms that have no potential of being used to defend themselves, but only stupidly and in ways that will wrongly hurt others and themselves.
Click to expand...


Well, one thing here of some significance has to be that among those who are actively discussing this issue on these forums, Thunder can no longer quite so clearly be claimed to be by far the most abjectly ignorant person regarding this subject. He now has some serious competition for that distinction.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Well, one thing here of some significance has to be that among those who are actively discussing this issue on these forums, Thunder can no longer quite so clearly be claimed to be by far the most abjectly ignorant person regarding this subject....
Click to expand...

can't make a post without trying to insult me, huh? how very sad.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
If he understood my arguments he wouldn't be for broad psych testing. You do understand that an overbroad interpretation of his stance can be used to signifigantly reduce the number of people who could otherwise safely and legally carry right? There are politicians currently advocating expanding the definition of just such a thing.
Click to expand...
You do understand that no one's arguing for an "over-broad interpretation of my stance" right? The fact that you focus on an "over-broad interpretation" of my stance instead of just my stance says it all. I've been quite clear that I don't support banning people left and right for non-threatening disorders. I've said that people who are obviously a threat to the public should be prohibited from owning weapons. You refuse to address this actual point I've made along with my specific examples and have instead taken it upon yourself to do some "over-broad" interpretation that NO ONE is arguing for. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS MENTIONED SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You do understand that no one's arguing for an "over-broad interpretation of my stance" right?
Click to expand...
Oh but you are. You have stated that the politicians and judges should pick the psychiatrists to accredit for the purposes of decided who can't have a gun. Psycologists range among the spectrum and there is a more than likely chance of anti-second politicians picking those professionals who have the broadest definition of danger. You are advocating for a door to prior restraint being opened for those who do not respect the amendment to infringe upon it. This is what I am trying to get you to realize, that certain politicians are apt to stack the deck in their favor, judges are not immune to applying biases either.
The fact that you focus on an "over-broad interpretation" of my stance instead of just my stance says it all. I've been quite clear that I don't support banning people left and right for non-threatening disorders.
Click to expand...
But you are in favor of allowing more gun control, stating many things anti-gun groups have said as well, and these are things that do not pass necessary and proper. I don't care how broad your interpretation of my rights are since you are not in a postition to infringe, however your stance can and often does become overbroad once you grant said powers to politicians.
I've said that people who are obviously a threat to the public should be prohibited from owning weapons. You refuse to address this actual point I've made along with my specific examples and have instead taken it upon yourself to do some "over-broad" interpretation that NO ONE is arguing for. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS MENTIONED SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.
Click to expand...
You have used similar defeated talking points, I don't know if that is your opinion or not but the constitution does not allow for most of your stance. There is a due process to remove a right from individuals, and it must still meet tests that are necessary AND proper, either/or is insufficient.
 
No.

People do stupid things, if you were not allowed to own guns there would be no need for them for protection. I do not think abolishing it is the way to go, just MUCH stricter laws and regulations on it.
 
iacardsfan said:
No.

People do stupid things, if you were not allowed to own guns there would be no need for them for protection. I do not think abolishing it is the way to go, just MUCH stricter laws and regulations on it.
Click to expand...
Criminals don't care about what they are "allowed" to do. Gun laws don't stop most of the "stupid" people from getting guns.
 
Yes. Any amendment that would help discourage hardened criminals from entering our neighborhood and robbing me, my family, and even my liberal neighbors, is A-OK in my book. ;)
 
Last edited:
iacardsfan said:
No.

People do stupid things, if you were not allowed to own guns there would be no need for them for protection. I do not think abolishing it is the way to go, just MUCH stricter laws and regulations on it.
Click to expand...
Laws, restrictions, and regulations have not and will not prevent such.

IMO, beyond a certain point (not sure where that point is), laws and regulations do far more harm than good.

Especially since they only affect those who abide by the law – and criminals are not members of that group.

Tight restrictions on heavy infantry weaponry, like crew-served machineguns, rocket launchers, and such, are one thing.

Bans or restrictions on the type or number of firearms (outside the above) someone can own make no sense, as again, they only affect those who follow the law.

Or something…
 
LaMidRighter said:
Oh but you are. You have stated that the politicians and judges should pick the psychiatrists to accredit for the purposes of decided who can't have a gun. Psycologists range among the spectrum and there is a more than likely chance of anti-second politicians picking those professionals who have the broadest definition of danger. You are advocating for a door to prior restraint being opened for those who do not respect the amendment to infringe upon it. This is what I am trying to get you to realize, that certain politicians are apt to stack the deck in their favor, judges are not immune to applying biases either. But you are in favor of allowing more gun control, stating many things anti-gun groups have said as well, and these are things that do not pass necessary and proper. I don't care how broad your interpretation of my rights are since you are not in a postition to infringe, however your stance can and often does become overbroad once you grant said powers to politicians. You have used similar defeated talking points, I don't know if that is your opinion or not but the constitution does not allow for most of your stance. There is a due process to remove a right from individuals, and it must still meet tests that are necessary AND proper, either/or is insufficient.
Click to expand...
It's funny to me that you think you're getting me to 'realize' something. I understand your position. I just disagree with it. This seems incredibly difficult for you to handle as you have to dismiss my disagreements by insulting my intelligence instead of dealing with people who think differently. Your argument is that my stance has the potential to be abused by politicians who have a political agenda and you assume that anyone who supports a stance that has the potential of abuse must want the abuse and is therefore, anti-gun and anti-second amendment.

The problem with this argument, however, is not only that it relies on too many assumptions about the people making the argument, but that it relies on the ridiculous premise that laws should not be made if they have the potential to be abused. Almost every law in the country has the potential to be abused and at some point they will be abused until those who do so are challenged by the public as is done every single day in elections, trials and other venues. In fact, I dare you to name a single law that cannot be abused. You won't be able to. And yet I doubt you would argue that the fact that any and every law can be abused is a reason to abolish all of them because that would be a stupid argument to make.

Now you might say then that the solution I propose offers a greater chance for abuse than other laws because, as you've said earlier, "psychiatry and psychology are subjective". This subjectivity might lead to greater chances of abuse because one can interpret what constitutes a "dangerous" mental disorder quite broadly. However, the same is true for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Both can be restricted by the government and what constitutes a necessary reason to do so requires an immense amount of subjectivity. And even further, the last I checked there wasn't an entire field of research dedicated to determining which sidewalks are appropriate for protests like there is for determining who has the mental capacity of a 2 year old. And yet, we still have those restrictions on speech and when the public feels they are being abused, we take them to court or vote for another person like we do for every single law in our country.

So, in other words, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than, "But the government might abuse it", because that applies to every law, and so by your logic, no laws should exist which is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom