Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:09:48 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Was that reason,dcnovice please stick to absolutes and libertarian thought lest you run afoul of others

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 221
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:14:37 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

What I'm trying to get at, clumsily, is that we do indeed seem to accept some limits on the literal, absolute language used in the Bill of Rights.


I don't accept that at all.  I reject that notion categorically and absolutely.



No limits at all? Not even the traditional prohibition on shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater?


There *IS* no prohibition on shouting "Fire" In fact, if there is a fire, in a crowded theater, you Damned Well Better shout "Fire!"

Of course, should you do it without cause, you *are* liable for the criminal penalties attached thereto.

Remember -- RIGHTS come from Your Creator. The Constitution tells the Damned Feds what *THEY* are permitted to do.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 222
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:16:45 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

The "fire" hypothetical, as stated by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenk v. United States is as follows:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.


Perhaps I'm misreading the Great Dissenter, but he seems to be saying what I've been saying: that in practice our rights are not absolute, that we accept limits on them for the common good. For example, we accept that "an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force" can coexist with the First Amendment. In that case, the amendment's wording that Congress can pass "no law...abridging the freedom of speech" cannot be taken absolutely or literally.


You're misreading him.

Rights are absolute.  Rights do not absolve us of consequence.

Which is why the hypothetical about shouting "fire" is not a speech issue.  Note the conditions Holmes stated:  "falsely shouting fire and causing a panic...."  In other words, if you start a riot you are going to be prosecuted in accordance with applicable statutes for causing a riot, and the right of free speech does not stand as a defense against such prosecution.  If you took a pistol and fired off a shot in the same theater starting a similar riot your right to keep and bear arms would not stand as a defense.

Turn the hypothetical around a bit and you'll understand the distinction:  Say you falsely shout fire but do not start a panic.  Would you/should you be prosecuted under those circumstances, and for what crime?

It is not limiting the right nor limiting the literal interpretation of the Constitution to insist on personal accountability in all things.


_____________________________



(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 223
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:18:11 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

YOUR KIDDING RIGHT of course that's the way it works ,and if the will of the people as expressed by their legally elected representatives change the law.And than gun rights proponents previously seen covering themselves in the legal right to those guns will of course give up said guns(being staunch believers in the law and as they keep reminding us law-abiding citizens right)

Well, Americans in general are law-abiding citizens. But when you change the laws in ways they won't abide, then they stop being law-abiding. Forget guns. Outlaw beer and see what happens. That's how it works.
 
K.
 

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 224
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:23:32 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

So the question becomes to what extent does each principle apply? Do I have the right to bear arms everywhere, unconditionally, with no restrictions? What does "arms" mean? Can I carry around Anthrax or a nuclear weapon? How about just an RPG? Truck bomb? Chainsaw? Shotgun?


Per the text of the Second Amendment, you do have the right to keep and bear each of the devices you list.  You also would be responsible for any outbreak of anthrax your bioweapon caused, or any radiation sickness your nuclear stockpile caused.


_____________________________



(in reply to Real_Trouble)
Profile   Post #: 225
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:24:56 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

But when you change the laws in ways they won't abide, then they stop being law-abiding. Forget guns. Outlaw beer and see what happens. That's how it works.


Very true.  It's worth noting that during Prohibition that is exactly what happened.  That scenario is not hypothetical but historical fact.


_____________________________



(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 226
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:29:17 PM   
MissSCD


Posts: 1185
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline 		I agree with them.  I think we definitely need some controls on fire arms.
There is way too much violence going on, and it is only going to be worse.
Do like my family did.  We got rid of all our guns.  My mother suffers from deep depression, and I thought it was time to have a gun free  home.
I am bipolar.  I am saving myself a lot of grief by using a gun on someone in anger.
This argument has been going on since the Brady Bill.  I am for it.  Think about your children.  Do you wish for them to pick up a gun and shoot someone with it?
 
Regards, MissSCD

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 227
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:29:45 PM   
Real_Trouble


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
Per the text of the Second Amendment, you do have the right to keep and bear each of the devices you list.


Really?

If we want to be bombastic, it states that I have the right to bear "arms", and I've got two of those, so I'm good.  They aren't "bear arms", per se, but human arms instead.  But what did we really mean by arms?  Do I have the right to bear munitions but not weapons?  Did they actually mean just arms, and implicitly, we don't have the right to legs?  Did they mean arms as they existed in the late 1700's, or all possible arms at all possible times? 

Language is highly plastic; it is impossible to know the precise intent of the meaning of "arms" in this context.  This is not to say you are right or wrong, but that to say merely per the text of the ammendment, we have no clue what is meant.  There are other contextual clues elsewhere and legal precedent built up around it, but if all I know is the few short sentences of the ammendment itself, I would argue there is no possible way that an unequivocally clear meaning can be derived.

Edit - Some of that first paragraph is intended to be humorous; I'm not literally suggesting it is true.  My point, however, is that the exact, precise, unequivocal meaning of the second ammendment as it pertains to all possible scenarios in all possible realities cannot be defined simply from the text.


< Message edited by Real_Trouble -- 3/19/2008 7:32:09 PM >

_____________________________

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 228
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:31:15 PM   
DiurnalVampire


Posts: 8125
Joined: 1/19/2006
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline 		I am of the thought that people should be allowed to bear arms. However in order to be able to do so, they should be required to be trained in how to use them.
We cannot buy a car without a drivers license, certifying that we have learned to safely operate a car.
I believe there should be something similiar for firearms. There should be a required certification course, and without a "gun license" you should not be alowed to purchase a firearm.

My 2 cents
DV


_____________________________

I will be your Dominate if you will be my submit - Fox

Snarko Ergo Sum
If you cannot change your mind, how are you so sure you still have one? -proverb

*Owner of Fox - collared 10/13/07*
VampiresLair

(in reply to MissSCD)
Profile   Post #: 229
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:31:48 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD

Think about your children.  Do you wish for them to pick up a gun and shoot someone with it?

That depends.
 
K.

 

(in reply to MissSCD)
Profile   Post #: 230
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:31:54 PM   
amelliagrace


Posts: 1792
Joined: 8/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
It comes down to people.

If I didn't have a basic trust in other Americans, I certainly wouldn't want them armed. But I do. I have found that when it matters, you can pretty much count on the vast majority of Americans to help. Sometimes, they will be able to help only because they are armed. And in those situations, my mind would rest easier if I knew that, as Americans, they would be able to "keep and bear" whatever the fuck it takes.

K.



Well said.
 
Grace

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 231
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:34:18 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

In other words, if you start a riot you are going to be prosecuted in accordance with applicable statutes for causing a riot, and the right of free speech does not stand as a defense against such prosecution.


That would seem to buttress the view that the right to speech is not absolute. Some speech can be punished because of the consequences it creates. Indeed, in Schenck, the words didn't have to have actual consequences. They had only to create "a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (emphasis mine).

In Schenck, the court also ruled that wartime allows for much great curtailing of free speech than we would tolerate in peacetime. That may be good policy, but it's hard to square with the argument that the right to free speech is absolute.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 232
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:34:44 PM   
amelliagrace


Posts: 1792
Joined: 8/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD
 Think about your children.  Do you wish for them to pick up a gun and shoot someone with it?
 
Regards, MissSCD


That would depend almos entirely upon the circumstances, an somewhat on the child.
 
Grace

(in reply to MissSCD)
Profile   Post #: 233
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:39:13 PM   
TracyTaken


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline 		If you could not confuse the quotes of people opposite each other in a debate, it would help me a lot.
Granted, I'm probably more given to confusion that most folks posting on this thread.

(in reply to Real_Trouble)
Profile   Post #: 234
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:41:31 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire
We cannot buy a car without a drivers license, certifying that we have learned to safely operate a car.


Of course you can otherwise you are telling every blind person, every person with a physical disability who is unable to drive, every person who has any other reason they can't personally obtain a DL in America they can't buy their kids a car, they can't buy themselves a car just to collect them, they can't buy a car for a spouse as a gift etc. Beyond that, you can drive a car without a driver's license, it's just not legal to do so. We can do pretty much anything we like as long as we're willing to suffer the consequences of our actions.

Celeste

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to DiurnalVampire)
Profile   Post #: 235
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:41:37 PM   
Real_Trouble


Posts: 471
Joined: 2/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

That would seem to buttress the view that the right to speech is not absolute. Some speech can be punished because of the consequences it creates. Indeed, in Schenck, the words didn't have to have actual consequences. They had only to create "a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (emphasis mine).

In Schenck, the court also ruled that wartime allows for much great curtailing of free speech than we would tolerate in peacetime. That may be good policy, but it's hard to square with the argument that the right to free speech is absolute.


This is off topic, so I'll be brief:

1 - It's not a right to speech, it's a right not to have speech curtailed in specific ways by the government (shall pass no law...); this is an important distinction.  Claiming an absolute and encompassing right to speech is clearly false from the start as there are private parties who, in the right circumstances, very much have a right to curtail your speech (or remove you from their property / employment / etc).

2 - There are rights guaranteed that conflict, as per my commentary above about the second ammendment.  This, which is partially what Schenk is about, is where the real action is in Constitutional Law.  If I have the right to unabridged speech, but my speech is likewise violating other rights, then what?

That's the crux of the issue in understanding why a wholly absolute and unequivocal right not to have speech curtailed by the government cannot exist, unless our courts deem the first ammendment so very sacred that it always, unquestionably, trumps all other ammendments, laws, and the like.  This is not the case.


_____________________________

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 236
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:43:26 PM   
MissSCD


Posts: 1185
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline 		It is the same old story Grace.   All we are asking for is a little control on automatic weapons, and knowledge of how to shoot a gun.  I was in the military so I know how to shoot, but at the same time, I was educated in the proper way to use it, and I know it will kill you.
No child should use a gun.
 
Regards, MissSCD

(in reply to TracyTaken)
Profile   Post #: 237
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:44:49 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		I really find it amazing how one minute pro gun advocates decry any attempt to infringe on the rights of "law abiding"citizens to their guns.Then declare they aren't giving them up no matter what changes might be made to the law.Will they have to give up their law abiding status  or do they have exemptions

(in reply to amelliagrace)
Profile   Post #: 238
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:45:00 PM   
TracyTaken


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: offline
quote:

YOUR KIDDING RIGHT of course that's the way it works ,and if the will of the people as expressed by their legally elected representatives change the law.And than gun rights proponents previously seen covering themselves in the legal right to those guns will of course give up said guns(being staunch believers in the law and as they keep reminding us law-abiding citizens right)


Well, if its the *will* of the people ... The reality is - the Supreme Court Says So - has no bearing on the will of the people, especially people who own guns, and they're gonna kill your ass before you take their guns.  That's not bad.   It's called "distrust of your government."  That's actually a *GOOD* thing, at least it has been considered a good thing, and the very government of the US was based on the belief that those bastards can't be trusted. 

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 239
RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:45:42 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD

Do you wish for them to pick up a gun and shoot someone with it?
 
Regards, MissSCD


Absolutely, if it's needed defending their home, their lives, the lives of their own children or of others. Do I want them to pick up a gun to do a drive-by? No, and it was part of my job as a parent to teach them the difference between the two.

Celeste

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to MissSCD)
Profile   Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.140