View Poll Results: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 1st amendment rights

    6 15.79%
  • A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 2nd amendment rights

    22 57.89%
  • Registration requirement of some or all of your books and other 1st amendment related things

    2 5.26%
  • Registration requirement of some or all of your firearms and other weapons.

    30 78.95%
  • A ban on certain books,religions, what the press can report and etc.

    3 7.89%
  • A ban on certain weapons.

    24 63.16%
  • A ban on certain individuals from exercising 1st amendment rights

    3 7.89%
  • A ban on certain individuals form exercising 2nd amendment rights

    17 44.74%
  • A total ban on 1st amendment rights

    2 5.26%
  • A total ban on 2nd amendment rights

    3 7.89%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 16 of 38 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 375

Thread: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

  1. #151
    User jacksbrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    05-23-12 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    103

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Did you bother to read the founder's quotes? They make things very clear.
    Yes, but this was still while the civilian people made up the army(militia)

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    well almost every legal scholar-from Liberals such as van Alstyne, Amar and Levinson to libertarians like Koppel to conservatives such as Cates and Volokh all support the individual right interpretation.

    the ones that don't-paid hacks of the Handgun Control Conspiracy against civil rights
    Actually, I own a gun myself, and aren't arguing that people don't have a right to a gun, I'm saying that I believe the government has every right to license and register, and control the sales of guns. One day it will have to happen. The day is coming when you won't be able to shoot a gun without hitting someone. Do we just continue the stupidity?

  2. #152
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,081

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    A second amendment equivalent would be shooting people in a theater, firing a weapon in a grocery or maliciously killing someone.

    If you fire a weapon into a movie theater,murder someone, or just randomly discharge your weapon in certain places you will get fined, go to jail/prison or sentenced to community service and or sued.
    No. It would not be. Restrictions on actions are not equal in the law. You are not allowed to drive home from a bar with an alcohol level above what is legally allowed in your state. You are perfectly allowed to walk home from the same bar with an alcohol level above what is legally allowed. Different issues, actions require different laws, regulations etc.

    No it is not.
    Of course it is. It relies on the premise that all restrictions should be equal across the board when the reality is that different issues have different restrictions and 'infringements'. It is a false dichotomy.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 04-04-10 at 08:49 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #153
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksbrat View Post
    Yes, but this was still while the civilian people made up the army(militia)



    Actually, I own a gun myself, and aren't arguing that people don't have a right to a gun, I'm saying that I believe the government has every right to license and register, and control the sales of guns. One day it will have to happen. The day is coming when you won't be able to shoot a gun without hitting someone. Do we just continue the stupidity?
    that is so hilarious

    so people are gonna be setting up tents in the target ranges

    registration has one use--to facilitate confiscation which is why gun haters support it

    where does the government get this power?
    Last edited by TurtleDude; 04-04-10 at 09:14 PM.



  4. #154
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    No. It would not be. Restrictions on actions are not equal in the law. You are not allowed to drive home from a bar with an alcohol level above what is legally allowed in your state. You are perfectly allowed to walk home from the same bar with an alcohol level above what is legally allowed. Different issues, actions require different laws, regulations etc.



    Of course it is. It relies on the premise that all restrictions should be equal across the board when the reality is that different issues have different restrictions and 'infringements'. It is a false dichotomy.
    here is the problem

    libs and gun haters want restrictions that they claim will enhance the public good even though they can never come up with any evidence that such restrictions will

    that is their only valid argument. There is no other valid argument for restriction of freedom other than the promotion of safety.

    we gun owners can argue against restrictions EVEN IF WE CONCEDE THAT THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY just as the ACLU can argue against the denial of Miranda rights, or against beating confessions out of prisoners even if those would increase the conviction rates of thugs

    So you gun restrictionists -the burden is on you to PROVE beyond any rational doubt-that your desired laws would make us safer.

    I doubt you can and since the issue is unsettled we win because we have several arguments against gun restrictions from the second amendment to the fact that restrictions actually increase crime



  5. #155
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    here is the problem

    libs and gun haters want restrictions that they claim will enhance the public good even though they can never come up with any evidence that such restrictions will

    that is their only valid argument. There is no other valid argument for restriction of freedom other than the promotion of safety.

    we gun owners can argue against restrictions EVEN IF WE CONCEDE THAT THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY just as the ACLU can argue against the denial of Miranda rights, or against beating confessions out of prisoners even if those would increase the conviction rates of thugs

    So you gun restrictionists -the burden is on you to PROVE beyond any rational doubt-that your desired laws would make us safer.

    I doubt you can and since the issue is unsettled we win because we have several arguments against gun restrictions from the second amendment to the fact that restrictions actually increase crime
    Wait...are you for or against registering gun owners? Personally, thats all I'm arguing to keep, in terms of the 2nd amendment debate.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  6. #156
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Wait...are you for or against registering gun owners? Personally, thats all I'm arguing to keep, in terms of the 2nd amendment debate.
    I am against it on numerous grounds

    1) it facilitates confiscation or a tax on guns presently owned

    2) it infringes on our rights

    3) I don't trust the database being secure--someone can hack into it and target homes for theft or crooked cops can use it to steal guns

    4) it has no crime fighting utility

    5) criminals or others banned from owning guns are exempt under 5th amendment grounds


    so why do you want it



  7. #157
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I am against it on numerous grounds

    1) it facilitates confiscation or a tax on guns presently owned
    You assume thats what it will be used for. I personally feel that registration should be used to confiscate weapons if someone is under crimincal investigation, but no tax should be put on guns owned by a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    2) it infringes on our rights
    It infringes on your rights how?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    3) I don't trust the database being secure--someone can hack into it and target homes for theft or crooked cops can use it to steal guns
    Oh, you just don't trust the government's security.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    4) it has no crime fighting utility
    If it was used to confiscate weapons during a criminal investigation, then there is the crime fighting utility.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    5) criminals or others banned from owning guns are exempt under 5th amendment grounds
    I do believe, under the 4th amendment, and Police SOP, guns are automatically collected during an investigation. And you can add in exceptions, and regulation to make sure that once you have been convicted of a violent crime,you have forfeited your right to the 2nd amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so why do you want it
    I would like it because:

    1. It allows police to know if someone possess a gun, when they are approaching to arrest said individual, or when they are searching for possible weapons.

    2. It would allow us to take away the 2nd amendment from people who have been convicted of a violent crime.

    3. As long as you're not taxed for it, all it does is tackle the problem of assymetric information.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  8. #158
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    so you believe in punishing someone before they are convicted

    sounds like a good reason to own a gun to shoot someone who would carry out such fascist nonsense

    that you don't want to use it to tax people is not relevant-plenty would

    it infringes on my rights because in a free state I don't have to register the gun--are you so dense as to think if registration is required people won't have to take affirmative steps to register guns they own or suffer penalties for failing to do so

    you think the people police normally deal with have guns that are registered?

    You really have very little understanding of law enforcement

    most criminals have guns that cannot be traced to them for obvious reasons
    Last edited by TurtleDude; 04-04-10 at 10:36 PM.



  9. #159
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,081

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    here is the problem

    libs and gun haters want restrictions that they claim will enhance the public good even though they can never come up with any evidence that such restrictions will

    that is their only valid argument. There is no other valid argument for restriction of freedom other than the promotion of safety.

    we gun owners can argue against restrictions EVEN IF WE CONCEDE THAT THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY just as the ACLU can argue against the denial of Miranda rights, or against beating confessions out of prisoners even if those would increase the conviction rates of thugs

    So you gun restrictionists -the burden is on you to PROVE beyond any rational doubt-that your desired laws would make us safer.
    Gun ownership legal and illegal is highest among some of the world's poorest countries. 'Coincidentally' these countries also suffer some of the world's highest rates of gun crimes and as a general rule of thumb have very little oversight over the ownership of weapons. El Salvador, Sierra Leone, Mexico - all are countries where people regularly carry with or without permit and all are experiencing or have experienced high waves of crime. The opposition to this 'more guns, less crimes' fallacy has been disputed over and over and supports its arguments with various studies

    * Jens Ludwig, Do Permissive Concealed-Carry Laws Reduce Violent Crime? unpublished draft dated Oct. 8, 1996, on file with Albert Alschuler. Ludwig notes a correlation between PPBF4049 (percent of population black, female, aged 40 to 49) and high crime rates in the data used in the Lott & Mustard crime trends regressions. (This factor is found as a correlation, but is not cited in Lott & Mustard 1997 as a causation.)

    * Albert Alschuler, Two Guns, Four Guns, Six Guns, More Guns: Does Arming the Public Reduce Crime? Valparaiso U Law Rev. Spring 1997. Alschuler notes that while PPBM2029 (as perpetrators of crime) and PPBF64+ (as victims) are strongly correlated to high homicide rates in the dataset used by Lott & Mustard 1997, PPBF4049 is rated more highly as a predictor of homicide rate. Alschuler notes that Lott supplied him with his copy of Ludwig's 1996 paper as well as the Lott & Mustard data.

    * Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, Concealed Handguns: The Counterfeit Deterrent, 7 The Responsive Community 2 (Spring 1997). Zimring & Hawkins cite recognition of the legitimacy of defensive gun use as an impediment to the socially desirable goal of eliminating private ownership of handguns and set out to criticise Lott & Mustard.

    Both Albert Alschuler and Jens Ludwig note a number of problems in their separate papers. Why, for example, should the concentration of older black women in a population predict higher crime rates in the Lott and Mustard model, but not the increased concentration of young men, age 20 to 29, who are vastly more likely to commit such offenses?

    * David Hemenway, 'Review of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws', New England Journal of Medicine, 1998.[10] Hemenway's review states

    Lott finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws

    * Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel stated that "Lott’s massive data set was simply unsuitable for his task", and that he "compar[ed] trends in Idaho and West Virginia and Mississippi with trends in Washington, D.C. and New York City" without proper statistical controls. He alleged that econometric methods (such as the Lott & Mustard RTC study or the Levitt & Donohue abortion study) are susceptible to misuse and can even become junk science. [11]

    * Ian Ayres, Yale Law School, and John Donohue, Stanford Law School, 'Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis'. Stanford Law Review, 2003.[12]

    * Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University, "Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data", published in International Review of Law and Economics, 1998.[13].

    * Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, "Do 'Right-to-Carry' Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 209-213 (January 1998).

    * Mark Duggan, University of Chicago, "More Guns, More Crime," National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. W7967, October 2000, later published in Journal of Political Economy.[14]

    * Steven Levitt, University of Chicago, 'Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not'. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004.[15] Levitt lists 'Laws allowing a right to carry concealed weapons' as number five in his list of 'Six Factors that Played Little or No Role in the Crime Decline'.

    * Jeffrey Miron, Boston University, 'Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis'. The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[16]

    * Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Thomas B. Marvell, "Right-To-Carry Concealed Firearms and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?" Criminology and Public Policy 2, (2003) pages 363-396.

    * John J. Donahue III, Stanford Law School, 'The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis', Criminology and Public Policy, 2003.[17]

    * John Donohue and Ian Ayres. "More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977 – 2006" Econ Journal Watch 6.2 (2009): 218-238.[18]

    I doubt you can and since the issue is unsettled we win because we have several arguments against gun restrictions from the second amendment to the fact that restrictions actually increase crime
    Where is this 'fact'? Germany has strong laws against gun owners ship. They have a lower violent crime rate than the U.S. - Or are you basing this 'fact' off the selective cherry picking of information?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #160
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so you believe in punishing someone before they are convicted
    I believe in taking pre-emptive measures. Police SOP is to confiscate any firearms found in a homicide case for example. If the police had prior knowledge that the person who allegedly had killed the victim owns a Beretta 9mm. Now, the police know the accused has a weapon, so they can seize that weapon, in accordance with SOP, and if you want, they can obtain a warrant before they seize the weapon, just to keep you happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    sounds like a good reason to own a gun to shoot someone who would carry out such fascist nonsense
    Oh good, I'd like to see you try that, see how long you last

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that you don't want to use it to tax people is not relevant-plenty would
    I'm not arguing for that, if you want to argue against that, find someone who is in favor of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    it infringes on my rights because in a free state I don't have to register the gun--are you so dense as to think if registration is required people won't have to take affirmative steps to register guns they own or suffer penalties for failing to do so
    Penalties like having the police come to their home, and ask them to register the guns? Well, if the police went to your house, it'd probably end up with a firefight from what I can tell, but the normal person on the street wouldn't mind telling the police they have a gun, and agreeing to go get that gun registered.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you think the people police normally deal with have guns that are registered?

    You really have very little understanding of law enforcement

    most criminals have guns that cannot be traced to them for obvious reasons
    Are you saying that police never deal with people who legally own and operate weapons? Well, if you are saying that, you know far less about law enforcement then you think I do.

    As you said, most criminals. And considering how much crime there is, consider just how many investigations could be positively affected if the police had prior knowledge that the person they were looking for owns a gun.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Page 16 of 38 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •