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 18 of 38 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 375

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

  1. #171
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    While I don't feel like googling it now, Hawaii-an Island has registered guns for years and a study indicates that their registration has had zero uses in solving crimes.

    we do know that gun registration was used to facilitate confiscation of handguns in great britain, many semi auto rifles in california, NJ and NYC and massive numbers of weapons in Australia

    what libs want is an onerous system that many will ignore and then the gun haters will claim those people are criminals deserving of getting "vicki weaverd" or Waco'd
    ''

    I believe that the people in office pushing for anti-2nd amendment laws know perfectly well they do not work. The anti-2nd amendment loons on the other hand may actually believe the BS and are just being manipulated by other idiots and the scum in office.


    Gun haters are haters pure and simple. They hate freedom, and they especially hate people who don't buy into their idiotic world view
    I think most of these people are just naive and fail to realize that a government has nothing to fear from a unarmed population and that they are being used by the scum in office.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  2. #172
    Voluntary Resignation

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    11-30-10 @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,059

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I believe that the people in office pushing for anti-2nd amendment laws know perfectly well they do not work.
    Quite to the contrary, gun control does work, and that is why they do it. It keeps guns out of the hands of law-abiding people, thereby making the populace more easy to control and less likely to rebel. Their argument that it prevents crime is simply a distraction.

  3. #173
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Perhaps it is a bb gun or one of those plastic pellet guns that he owns or maybe a cap gun or just a replica of a gun.
    .
    Paint guns are quite popular among our youth these days.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  4. #174
    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
    Yeah its all BS, I saw it, You obviously know very little about the subject
    I love how you say something, but fail to explain how

    And you're an attorney? God, the BAR standards must be real different where you live, as opposed to California

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and yeah people who would seize guns of people in violation of due process ought to be shot.
    Officers often confiscate weapons without warrants specifically for the weapon...so you're saying officers should be shot for doing their job?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and your desires are truly fascist
    You keep comforting yourself with that

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    police do deal with people with guns and the ones who would harm police officers usually don't have registered weapons or ones bought legally
    As you said, usually, not always. Because, as you said yourself, situations do exist in which weapons are legally bought, and used violently, there should be registration on these weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and if they do and are willing to kill police officers registration obviously did nothing
    Except let the officers know that the weapons were in the possesion of said person, allowing them to prepare beforehand.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    edify me as to your law enforcement background
    You can't teach the ignorant
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  5. #175
    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
    While I don't feel like googling it now, Hawaii-an Island has registered guns for years and a study indicates that their registration has had zero uses in solving crimes.

    we do know that gun registration was used to facilitate confiscation of handguns in great britain, many semi auto rifles in california, NJ and NYC and massive numbers of weapons in Australia

    what libs want is an onerous system that many will ignore and then the gun haters will claim those people are criminals deserving of getting "vicki weaverd" or Waco'd

    Gun haters are haters pure and simple. They hate freedom, and they especially hate people who don't buy into their idiotic world view
    I really don't know how to say this without being rude...but you are psychotic
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  6. #176
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    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
    You keep spreading the goal posts in order to help muddy the argument further. People who are pro-gun are just as subject to bias as people who are pro-regulation. 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 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.
    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

  7. #177
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.

  8. #178
    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 misterman View Post
    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.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  9. #179
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

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

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    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).

  10. #180
    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 misterman View Post
    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).
    I agree, and this is something that some people on this thread cannot bear to listen to.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Page 18 of 38 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... 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
  •