- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Indeed, we did.:mrgreen:I agree, I think we made the same point essentially, mine was just a little longer winded.
Indeed, we did.:mrgreen:I agree, I think we made the same point essentially, mine was just a little longer winded.
You are arguing that simple posession of a class of firearms should be banned, on the idea that it creates a danger to public safety -- because they could be used to kill large numbers of people.huh?
What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.
I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.
And, to reiterate, not all speech is "free speech".What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.
So, what's the argument for banning simple posession?
>99.99% of guns are not used to kill anyone... so, no, I cannot.
It DOES directly put people at risk, which is why it is illegal,
What do you suppose the gun-related equivelant to yelling fire in a theater might be?
Doesn't matter for my pointYelling fire in a crowded theater can, does, and did do harm to others, which is why it is unprotected speach, the utterance, an action, creates a clear and present danger. Owning an assault rifle in itself is not an intent to harm, and like Gobieman stated, the intent to harm would be firing the rifle, that is the actionn that could be considered a clear and present danger, the behavior of illicit use of the weapon can be banned constitutionally, NOT the action of owning it.
Doesn't matter for my pointSure it can. Not all speech is "free speech".
"Fighting words", libel, slander -- all examples of things that are not free speech.
Sure it can.
Not all weapons are 'arms'.
Not everyone is among 'the people'.
Not every limitation is an 'infringement'.
You havn't shown that simple posession of an 'assault weapon' is a danger to public safety.
i am hearing everyone's reason now, and it doesn't work. i doubt it was explained better before.Or you could read the whole thread, since that point was dismissed already. It's not a long thread, so have at it.
Doesn't matter for my pointAll weapons, by the way you're using the term, "put people at risk".
Cars put people at risk, shall we ban cars?
Knives put people at risk, shall we ban Knives?
Razors put people at risk, shall we ban razors?
Hammers put people at risk, shall we ban hammers?
Someone owning an assult weapon does not infringe on anyones rights. If said person then brandishes or fires an assult weapon at someone else, then that argument can be made.
Likewise
Saying "Fire" does not infringe upon anyones rights. However, say "Fire" in the middle of a large crowd in a confined space with limited exits and then an argument can be made.
wheere do people have a "right" to not hear someone yell fire in a crowded building. The Bill of Rights specifically says that rights can't be used to get rid of other rights
no im not.You are arguing that simple posession of a class of firearms should be banned, on the idea that it creates a danger to public safety -- because they could be used to kill large numbers of people.
The POTENTIAL to endanger public safety is not the same as ACTUALLY endangering public safety.
If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.
thx for the info. and I agree, most of the time owning a gun is legal.Nerv shooting people is illegal for the most part owning a gun is not.
Wait, so you do think that owning some guns should be illegal? thats just what im saying.
And, to reiterate, not all speech is "free speech".
No, it doesn't say that all speech is "free speech."
The first amendment says that there can't be any violations in the freedom of speech. Its the freedom to say speech, not some strange "free speech"
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
All I am saying is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely legal.
And by everyone else's logic, should we allow nuclear firearms and rocket launchers? Those don't harm anyone if they aren't used.
I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once. This is simillar to what nuclear weapons and rocket launchers do, which is why they should be illegal to private citizens.
However, if one person wants to kill someone else then I am not stopping them from doing that. They can buy a semi-automatic gun.
Is that too much to ask?
huh?
What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway?
It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.
I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.
exactly... we aren't gauranteed safety.
see bolded text from you) But then why can't i scream fire in a crowded building? It seems like a violation of my rights from a literal interepretation of the first amendment.
However, it doesn't violate it because the amendments can't be taken literally,
which is why we can ban assult weapons. the second amendment can't be literal if the first amendment isn't.
im happy that this confusion is settled.
I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once.
This is simillar to what nuclear weapons and rocket launchers do, which is why they should be illegal to private citizens.
However, if one person wants to kill someone else then I am not stopping them from doing that. They can buy a semi-automatic gun.
Is that too much to ask?
I am so sick and tired of this "ban assault rifle" whine. What if I have to assault somebody? Answer me that.
By this same logic we should ban cars or toxic substances or dynamite.
Why should a rocket launcher be illegal? As for nuclear weapons, they are not relevant as no citizen could ever obtain one.
What about a semi-automatic rifle?
Yes. Far too much.
Ok... to remove your obtuseness here...No, it doesn't say that all speech is "free speech."
The first amendment says that there can't be any violations in the freedom of speech. Its the freedom to say speech, not some strange "free speech"
I don't think thats what you mean to say.All I am saying is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely legal.
Please restrict the conversation to something relevant to the topic -- "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd doesnt cover nukes.And by everyone else's logic, should we allow nuclear firearms and rocket launchers? Those don't harm anyone if they aren't used.
The point of having the right to arms protected by the Constitution is that sometimes people need to kill other people.I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once.
Um...However, if one person wants to kill someone else then I am not stopping them from doing that. They can buy a semi-automatic gun.
thx lets talk about the issues.
Cars shouldn't be illegal, because the benefits from having cars outweigh their ability to kill many people.
The same with dynamite. How else would you blow up **** that you have to move?
I don't have an answer for dynamite completely, because im doing something called "weighing the pros and cons" of a situation.
And with rocket launchers... you don't need to blow up anything at a distance that isn't suppose to kill lots of people or blow up other people's things.
However, assult rifles have no other purpose except killing lots of people.
Also, i am pretty sure its illegal to develope your own nukes in the US to use as a form of arms. but if the gov prevented people from making their own guns that would be seen as a violation of the second amendment. not to mention how yellow cake bullets are most likely illegal.
so the second amendment is not literal. duh
Ok... to remove your obtuseness here...
Not all speech is protected undr the "freedom of speach".
This is a long and well established constitutional issue.
Yes, my bad.I don't think thats what you mean to say.
Please restrict the conversation to something relevant to the topic -- "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd doesnt cover nukes.
The point of having the right to arms protected by the Constitution is that sometimes people need to kill other people.
Given this, how is your aregument for banning 'assault weapons' remain relevant?
Um...
You don't know that ALL 'assault weapons', by definition, ARE semi-automatic?
Assault rifles permit the overthrow of tyrannical governments. I'd say that's quite beneficial.
How else would you overthrow a tyrannical government?
Yes, I know what you're doing; fact is it's not terribly relevant. My rights are not subject to an arbitrary "pro and con" litmus test.
No, no. You are misinterpreting the Constitution by taking it literally. As I have said, for the first amendment it is "violated" in the literal sense with many laws that exist today. The Constitution says that none of the rights can be overrun in an attempt to retain other rights
Not at all. "Freedom of speech" has inherent limits; the 1st does not protect anything outside those limits. And so, the constitution is interpreted literally, as everything that IS inluded under "freedom of speech" IS protected.You are correct that not all speech is protected under freedom of speech.
However, once again... that is only because we aren't taking the first amendment literally.
This has been described in US v Miller and Heller v DC.What is your definition of "arms"?
Davey Crockett.The military currently, or has been trying to develope in the past a long range rocket launcher that fires nuclear weapons.
Well then - your argument fails at "has no other value", in that::doh I have said this many times. My reason for banning assult weapons isn't based specifically on the Constitution. Its based on which weapons have no other value except for killing many people at once.
Then you are not having the same conversation we are.Fair enough. Whenever I have talked about "assult weapons" I meant completely automatic weapons. I was thinking that an assult "rifle" would be a semi-automatic.
Jimmy Carter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html?_r=2&ref=global
So:
Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?
Not at all. "Freedom of speech" has inherent limits; the 1st does not protect anything outside those limits. And so, the constitution is interpreted literally, as everything that IS inluded under "freedom of speech" IS protected.
This has been described in US v Miller and Heller v DC.
'Arms" means a weapon that is "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".
This clearly covers any firearm you care to mention.
Davey Crockett.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
Well then - your argument fails at "has no other value", in that:
1: There's nothing inherently wrong with having the capacity to kill many at once
2: You have to show that these weapons have "no other value".
3: You have to show how these weapons are not covered as 'arms" under the 2nd.
Then you are not having the same conversation we are.
I would be curious what people think "ordinary weapons are"
Thank you, I am fine disagreing on what your rights are. We can discuss that. I am just tired discussion if the Constitution should be taken literally.
No, no. You are misinterpreting the Constitution by taking it literally.
As I have said, for the first amendment it is "violated" in the literal sense with many laws that exist today.
The Constitution says that none of the rights can be overrun in an attempt to retain other rights. Therefore, a right to life (related to the yelling in a crowded building) can't be used to violate the first amendment. So in effect, there is a contridiction in the Constitution. That is why it can't be taken literally.
Yes, you can have a semi-automatic rifle.
Let me clarify. when I said weapons that can kill many people without having any other benefit, I meant weapons that could kill many people at one time very quickly.
Hell, a handgun can kill many people, it just takes a while, which is why handguns should be legal.
I think im done with the discussions on literal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. For clarification, people should look at my post about how the Bill of Rights says that one right, can't be used to infringe upon another.
If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.
Well, actually, banning assault weapons would be more like banning men having 20 or more penises.