• 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!

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

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


  • Total voters
    32
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

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

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

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

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

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

The word "regulated" actually appears in the text of the second amendment...
... and refers to the militia, not the right to arms.
What's your point?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

... and refers to the militia, not the right to arms.
What's your point?

Which militia? The one you have to be a member of to own a gun? :cool:
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Should we make a difference between:
collecting historical rifels and guns
hunting weapons
guns for self protection

weapons for crime and terrorist activity. Here resonalbe conservatives should be against this last issue, please.
The term used in the amendment, is "arms".
This termas used in the context of said amendment, covers any class of firearm you care to mention.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Permits need to be issued for things like mass protests or parades on public property, so as to ensure the police authorities can be adequately prepared to streamline daily commerce.
Yes. Time, place, manner. Public property.

This speaks in no way to the constitutionality of licensing simple ownership or possession. For this to have any menaing -- that is, to argue apples and apples -- the license to exercise the right to keep and bear arms would have to be in a similar circumstance -- that is, for use on public property.

Assault weapons (including military brand sharpshooters) should require psychological testing and licensing and be subject to temporary bans under the advisement of local police authorities.
There's absolutely no sound argument for this, or its constitutionality.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

There are already reasonable infringements on your 1st amendment rights. Try screaming fire in a theater, try speaking untruths about a person, try saying you want to kill somebody etc. You will get sued, fined and a few knocks on your door. This poll is a false dichotomy.
What, exactly, is the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a a theater?
What, exactly, is the 2nd amendment equivelant to slander? Libel?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

What, exactly, is the 2nd amendment equivelant to yelling fire in a a theater?
What, exactly, is the 2nd amendment equivelant to slander? Libel?

Owning a cannon?

Walking into a courtroom with a sidearm?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

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.
Based on what, exactly?
All of the restrictions on free speech revolve around the point where someone else is harmed or placed in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
How/why is this not a legitimate standard for restrictions on the 2nd?

The reality is that there are reasonable restrictions and 'infringements' on the use of free speech.
The reality is that any restriction on same is a restriction on something that does not fall under 'free pseech'. For any similar restrictions to be applicable to the 2nd, the actions in question would have to similarly fall outside the right to arms.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Owning a cannon?
Walking into a courtroom with a sidearm?
Which are these supposed to relate to, and how, exactly, do they relate?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Which militia? The one you have to be a member of to own a gun? :cool:
You dont have to have any relationship whatsoever to the miliita in order to exercise the right to arms under the protection of the 2nd.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Which are these supposed to relate to, and how, exactly, do they relate?

They relate in general. They are reasonable restrictions. There's no one-to-one correspondence with speech restrictions, nor should there be.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

You dont have to have any relationship whatsoever to the miliita in order to exercise the right to arms under the protection of the 2nd.

Just checking. ;)
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

They relate in general. They are reasonable restrictions. There's no one-to-one correspondence with speech restrictions, nor should there be.
If you're going to argue that certain examples of how free speech can be restricted illustrate how the right to arms can be restricted, then you have to compare similar circumstances for the comparison to have any meaning.

Libel and slander are illegal, and do not fall under the protection of the 1st, because they directly cause harm to someone else.

How is owning cannon an example of that?

Yelling fire in a theater is illegal, and does not fall under the protection of the 1st, because it places others in a condition of clear, present, immediate danger.

How is owning cannon an example of that?


Guns are not allowed in courtooms, and the restrcition on same does not violate the 2nd amendment, because, like free speech, you do no thave an unfettered or unrestrcited right to exercise -any- given right on public property.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Guns are not allowed in courtooms, and the restrcition on same does not violate the 2nd amendment, because, like free speech, you do no thave an unfettered or unrestrcited right to exercise -any- given right on public property.

Thanks for doing it for me.

I don't know about the cannon, but it wasn't my point in the first place, and I'm just not interested enough in it to pursue it further, Sorry.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Thanks for doing it for me.
Well, OK, but I'm not sure how this means anything, especially when trying to create an argument that supports restricting simple ownership/possession/use on something other than public property.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Well, OK, but I'm not sure how this means anything, especially when trying to create an argument that supports restricting simple ownership/possession/use on something other than public property.

But you think it's okay to restrict gun possession on public property?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

But you think it's okay to restrict gun possession on public property?
Sorry -- misunderstood yor question.

Every bit as much as it is OK to restrict free speech, for the same reasons, under the same conditions and with the same argument.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I





You can't teach the ignorant ;)

Obviously not, you still support gun control when all the evidence cuts against it as a crime fighting tool
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I really don't know how to say this without being rude...but you are psychotic :shock:

Nothing screams out louder that you lost then psychobabbling such a silly insult. Listen kid, I have been in the gun control debate for more than thirty years including slapping Sarah Brady's BS so hard she told then Mayor David Mann she'd never appear in Cincinnati again if I were still there. I have dealt with Howard Metzenbaum, Nelson "Pete Shields" and other hard core gun haters and yes, everything I said is true. All of them have admitted at one time or another that crime control is not what motivates them but rather banning lawful gun ownership. And yes, many of them want to pass onerous laws hoping honest gun owners would become "technical" criminals justifying confiscation of all their guns

I note the psychobabbling hoplophobic left has already decreed that gun ownership is psychotic, especially when the ownership is based on a desire to hunt or defend oneself

so insult away kid, I've dealt with the top professionals on your side of the aisle without breaking a sweat and someone like you isn't going to ruffle my feathers.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Gun haters are haters pure and simple. They hate freedom, and they especially hate people who don't buy into their idiotic world view

Nothing screams out louder that you lost then psychobabbling such a silly insult.

You dish it out pretty good.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

You dish it out pretty good.

Thank you

much obliged I am:)
 
Back
Top Bottom