[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
Yes, and there are.[/quote]
?[/quote]
Fire in a crowded theater, slander, multitude of other examples. Speech is restricted in many ways. [/quote]
Slander is not restricted. It’s just punishable civilly. Big difference.
How about political speech? A Democrat Congressman just offered a bill to limit political speech he disagreed with.
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?[/quote]
The rules of engagement were why we had problems in Afganistan.
We were fighting by Earl of Queensberry pussy fighting rules. They were doing whatever it took.
We could have pacified Afganistan in 10 months if actually permitted to fight.[/quote]
We have no idea who the bad guys are. They all look the same. If they lined up old school their best vs our best it wouldn’t have taken 10 months, more like 10 days. Desert storm type domination.
Sadly we have no idea if that is a ten year old peaceful boy or a ten year old with a bomb in his bookbag. We don’t know who we’re fighting, we don’t know when we’ll have won, that’s how you get to be in a place for a decade despite having every other possible advantage when it comes to war.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Contradictory.
The second amendment is the right to militarily resist the government. NOT about personal defense. If you are in favor of allowing the government to have arms citizens cannot, you are not in favor of the second amendment.
The guys who wrote the constitution were in favor of civilians owning warships and artillery. A full auto rifle is nowhere near as deadly as weapons civilians were allowed to own when the second amendment was written.[/quote]
So private citizens should be able to acquire RDX and C4? Hmmmm, I don’t see any potential for abuse with this solid argument. You need to brush up on your Security Studies bud.
[quote]H factor wrote:
That’s fine. I just think their is a certain amount of issue with saying don’t take our guns so we can protect against the government, but in also wanting our military to be so large and powerful they would be useless. [/quote]
We at least have a chance with guns. Without, I hope you enjoy do what your told.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
Yes, and there are.[/quote]
?[/quote]
Fire in a crowded theater, slander, multitude of other examples. Speech is restricted in many ways. [/quote]
These aren’t restrictions though. There are consequences to the above, but you’re free to do them. That’s a big distiction I think.
[/quote]
This is splitting hairs. You’re free to own whatever weapons you want, just some of them happen to be against the law. I can do to heroin if I want to, it’s still illegal.
Just to be clear though I support the 2nd. Just pointing out that those who argue the loudest for protection from the government are often those who desire the government to be as powerful as possible.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
According to 2011 numbers, California has some of the strictest gun laws, yet we rank as high as #19 in the country for murder rates.
It seems that people still find ways to kill others using things other than guns.
[/quote]
Or the criminals perpetrating these crimes acquire them illegally. Your argument is understood though.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
Yes, and there are.[/quote]
?[/quote]
Fire in a crowded theater, slander, multitude of other examples. Speech is restricted in many ways. [/quote]
These aren’t restrictions though. There are consequences to the above, but you’re free to do them. That’s a big distiction I think.
[/quote]
This is splitting hairs. You’re free to own whatever weapons you want, just some of them happen to be against the law. I can do to heroin if I want to, it’s still illegal.
Just to be clear though I support the 2nd. Just pointing out that those who argue the loudest for protection from the government are often those who desire the government to be as powerful as possible.
[/quote]
Well no it’s not. I can’t walk into my local gun shop and buy a machine gun. I can however, buy a movie ticket and yell fire. Speech is not restricted, but these can be consequences. The same should go for guns after all they are both guaranteed via the constitution.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
Yes, and there are.[/quote]
?[/quote]
See Brandenburg v. Ohio. Speech likely to incite imminent lawless action is not protected by the Constitution. “Fire in a crowded movie theater” is the popular paradigm.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
Yes, and there are.[/quote]
?[/quote]
See Brandenburg v. Ohio. Speech likely to incite imminent lawless action is not protected by the Constitution. “Fire in a crowded movie theater” is the popular paradigm.
[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
That’s fine. I just think their is a certain amount of issue with saying don’t take our guns so we can protect against the government, but in also wanting our military to be so large and powerful they would be useless. [/quote]
We at least have a chance with guns. Without, I hope you enjoy do what your told.[/quote]
We also have to keep in mind a very important variable, the service members themselves. These aren’t autonomous machines, but living, breathing, people. As such, their course of action is not set in stone in such a hypothetical scenario.
Well no it’s not. I can’t walk into my local gun shop and buy a machine gun. I can however, buy a movie ticket and yell fire. Speech is not restricted, but these can be consequences. The same should go for guns after all they are both guaranteed via the constitution.[/quote]
Didn’t see the responses above which basically echo my last post. But regarding this quoted post–
The criminalization of certain kinds of speech is absolutely analogous to the criminalization of certain types of weapons. The Constitution guarantees speech, but certain of its manifestations are illegal. That it is impossible to preempt such an act as shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater is of absolutely no consequence.
[quote]H factor wrote:
That’s fine. I just think their is a certain amount of issue with saying don’t take our guns so we can protect against the government, but in also wanting our military to be so large and powerful they would be useless. [/quote]
We at least have a chance with guns. Without, I hope you enjoy do what your told.[/quote]
We also have to keep in mind a very important variable, the service members themselves. These aren’t autonomous machines, but living, breathing, people. As such, their course of action is not set in stone in such a hypothetical scenario.[/quote]
Absolutely. I doubt very seriously the military in it’s entirety would ever turn on her own people
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Well I stand corrected as far as speech goes. I think if there was ever a vase of legislating from the bench Brandenburg vs. Ohio is a good example.[/quote]
I do not disagree with you in one sense–the letter of the law seems to allow any speech.
On the other hand, few people would argue that the criminalization of imminently threatening speech is a bad thing, or poses a threat to the well-being of political speech.
[quote]H factor wrote:
My only beef with some of this is the same people saying we should be able to have what the government has to protect against them also support a defense system so large that it ensures we never could.
We spend more than the next 10 biggest countries combined all but assuring that those who want protection against the government could never have it. Make no mistake about it while I believe that WAS the original intent, it doesn’t hold up today.
I’m fairly well armed folks, but if the jackbooted government wants to take me down my collection ain’t doing jack shit against them. [/quote]
Kind of like those goat herders in Afganistan with their cheap AKs, vs. the federal government?[/quote]
The rules of engagement were why we had problems in Afganistan.
We were fighting by Earl of Queensberry pussy fighting rules. They were doing whatever it took.
We could have pacified Afganistan in 10 months if actually permitted to fight.[/quote]
Which ROE’s are you referring to specifically? The Soviets, who were absolutely brutal, failed to achieve their strategic goals in the 80’s. It would be interesting to get a subject matter expert’s opinion on the course of events in Afghanistan.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I added that I am in favor of certain restrictions: i.e., I support the 2nd but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban on weapons like the M&P/stricter background checks.[/quote]
Should there also be restrictions on certain kinds of speech?
[/quote]
Yes, and there are.[/quote]
?[/quote]
Fire in a crowded theater, slander, multitude of other examples. Speech is restricted in many ways. [/quote]
Slander is not restricted. It’s just punishable civilly. Big difference.
[/quote]
Correct, slander and libel are civil matters.
Other types of speech are legally restricted, though.
So to answer your original question: yes, certain kinds of speech should be illegal. And are.
Well no it’s not. I can’t walk into my local gun shop and buy a machine gun. I can however, buy a movie ticket and yell fire. Speech is not restricted, but these can be consequences. The same should go for guns after all they are both guaranteed via the constitution.[/quote]
Didn’t see the responses above which basically echo my last post. But regarding this quoted post–
The criminalization of certain kinds of speech is absolutely analogous to the criminalization of certain types of weapons. The Constitution guarantees speech, but certain of its manifestations are illegal. That it is impossible to preempt such an act as shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater is of absolutely no consequence.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily agree, but that’s not important. The point I want to make is that we should be careful not to let the gov take away our ability to protect ourselves because a small % abuses the technology. If we continue to allow the gov to take they will eventually take it all. America isn’t special, it could happen to use.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Well I stand corrected as far as speech goes. I think if there was ever a vase of legislating from the bench Brandenburg vs. Ohio is a good example.[/quote]
I do not disagree with you in one sense–the letter of the law seems to allow any speech.
On the other hand, few people would argue that the criminalization of imminently threatening speech is a bad thing, or poses a threat to the well-being of political speech.
It’s a complicated balance.[/quote]
It’s. A slippery slope and I believe that ruling puts us one step closer to losing our footing.
[quote]H factor wrote:
That’s fine. I just think their is a certain amount of issue with saying don’t take our guns so we can protect against the government, but in also wanting our military to be so large and powerful they would be useless. [/quote]
We at least have a chance with guns. Without, I hope you enjoy do what your told.[/quote]
We also have to keep in mind a very important variable, the service members themselves. These aren’t autonomous machines, but living, breathing, people. As such, their course of action is not set in stone in such a hypothetical scenario.[/quote]
Absolutely. I doubt very seriously the military in it’s entirety would ever turn on her own people
[/quote]
While I agree it is also unlikely, taking your stance renders the protection against the government stance moot. If we say we don’t have to worry about that then how can we argue we should have certain guns BECAUSE of that?