Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

One of the hard things about “speech” is “speech” can also be an “action” with a purpose that is more than just to convey a protected idea. Handing a bank teller a note that says “give me all the money in the bank or I’ll blow it up” is technically “speech,” but its also an action that can justifiably land you in jail. I’m for interpreting all the bill of rights very broadly in favor of the individual, but there are places where lines need to be drawn that get murky.

82

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Because, if tyranny ever occurred in the US, at least a portion of the military would be on board. They’d have to or we’d laugh at those trying to control use.

83

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

One of the hard things about “speech” is “speech” can also be an “action” with a purpose that is more than just to convey a protected idea. Handing a bank teller a note that says “give me all the money in the bank or I’ll blow it up” is technically “speech,” but its also an action that can justifiably land you in jail. I’m for interpreting all the bill of rights very broadly in favor of the individual, but there are places where lines need to be drawn that get murky. [/quote]

…and that action already has a consequence. Theft is a crime. We don’t need to restrict speech, but punish those that commit crimes. If you yell firw in a theatre and someone dies it’s manslaughter or murder, for example.

Why restrict a right when you can just make people deal with the consequences of their actions?

84

I don’t like the idea of speech restriction because drawing a line is very difficult, same wi h gun control. I could walk within a block of where I am in Baltimore city and tell a guy to his face to fuck off and probably shot. It’s a silly situation, but did I not incite violence? Should thay be illegal?

85

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

One of the hard things about “speech” is “speech” can also be an “action” with a purpose that is more than just to convey a protected idea. Handing a bank teller a note that says “give me all the money in the bank or I’ll blow it up” is technically “speech,” but its also an action that can justifiably land you in jail. I’m for interpreting all the bill of rights very broadly in favor of the individual, but there are places where lines need to be drawn that get murky. [/quote]

…and that action already has a consequence. Theft is a crime. We don’t need to restrict speech, but punish those that commit crimes. If you yell firw in a theatre and someone dies it’s manslaughter or murder, for example.

Why restrict a right when you can just make people deal with the consequences of their actions?

[/quote]

Maybe this is just semantics, but if the speech is “protected” then you can defend against the crime of attempt on First Amendment grounds. In other words, if I handed the teller the card, and then a security guard tackled me, I could defend the attempted bank robbery charge on the grounds that the speech was protected by the First Amendment if it was, in fact, protected. But the speech, in this context, isn’t protected, which is why I can’t use the First Amendment as a defense to the attempted bank robbery charge. I agree with you in one sense, but, again, it gets murky.

86

I’m on my phone, sorry for the typos, but it ain’t getting fixed.

87

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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]

One of the hard things about “speech” is “speech” can also be an “action” with a purpose that is more than just to convey a protected idea. Handing a bank teller a note that says “give me all the money in the bank or I’ll blow it up” is technically “speech,” but its also an action that can justifiably land you in jail. I’m for interpreting all the bill of rights very broadly in favor of the individual, but there are places where lines need to be drawn that get murky. [/quote]

…and that action already has a consequence. Theft is a crime. We don’t need to restrict speech, but punish those that commit crimes. If you yell firw in a theatre and someone dies it’s manslaughter or murder, for example.

Why restrict a right when you can just make people deal with the consequences of their actions?

[/quote]

Maybe this is just semantics, but if the speech is “protected” then you can defend against the crime of attempt on First Amendment grounds. In other words, if I handed the teller the card, and then a security guard tackled me, I could defend the attempted bank robbery charge on the grounds that the speech was protected by the First Amendment if it was, in fact, protected. But the speech, in this context, isn’t protected, which is why I can’t use the First Amendment as a defense to the attempted bank robbery charge. I agree with you in one sense, but, again, it gets murky. [/quote]

Or we could just use common sense. He basically said he was there to commit a crime, does he have a gun? Intent is an element every prosecutors has to prove anyway. I’m not for restrixting speexh because someone might try and use it as a defense for their actions.

88

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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? [/quote]

Because, if tyranny ever occurred in the US, at least a portion of the military would be on board. They’d have to or we’d laugh at those trying to control use.
[/quote]

I would say tyranny already happens here and has happened for a while now, and I’m not as convinced as you that so many military members would disrespect their leaders and jump onboard with others. You have more faith in our military to be on our side than I do and that is not meant to be a shot at them in the least bit. Ask Japanese-Americans if they think the US military would always be on their side in regards to tyranny.

90

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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? [/quote]

The answer to your question is right there in his post. Look.[/quote]

I already answered this. If you say we NEED guns to protect against the government in one breath and then say I doubt they would ever turn against us in the other breath how is that consistent? If we don’t have to worry about the government turning against us is that a good argument for an armed populace? If so how?

91

Scalia, though, has hinted that he believes that the Second Amendment does not bar prohibition and regulation of some firearms:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

AS noted, Scalia’s basis is the existence of some legal precedent supporting a level of regulation at the time of ratification.

92

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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? [/quote]

The answer to your question is right there in his post. Look.[/quote]

I already answered this. If you say we NEED guns to protect against the government in one breath and then say I doubt they would ever turn against us in the other breath how is that consistent? If we don’t have to worry about the government turning against us is that a good argument for an armed populace? If so how?

[/quote]

The government is not the military or vice versa.

93

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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? [/quote]

The answer to your question is right there in his post. Look.[/quote]

I already answered this. If you say we NEED guns to protect against the government in one breath and then say I doubt they would ever turn against us in the other breath how is that consistent? If we don’t have to worry about the government turning against us is that a good argument for an armed populace? If so how?

[/quote]

The government is not the military or vice versa.
[/quote]

You don’t view the military as part of the government?

94

I’ve only kind perused the rest of this thread so forgive me if these points were mentioned, but a couple observations.

  1. The discussion of the private right to arms IS different when speaking of an M1 Abrams or a missile launching system OR a nuclear warhead than it is when discussing even full select fire small arms.

  2. We had better face the fact now that there is just no possible way even millions of private citizens will repel an organized attack from our government. While were at it we better face the fact that private citizens, even millions, could never mount an offensive attack that would amount to much more than really big riot control to our military if engaged in earnest. Stop the delusions of noble grandeur, they will step on you like a bug.

97

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

You really think AKs are the reason we won’t win in Afghanistan? How often do you think it is those goat herders GUNS doing the damage? How many of us are willing to blow ourselves up anyways? [/quote]

No, it’s their resolve. They have conviction in their cause something America has lost, but would get back if the need truly arose.
[/quote]

It’s a multitude of factors. Resolve against foreign invaders. Us not being to figure out exactly who is the enemy.

We will never achieve victory in Afghanistan (largely because we have no idea what that is), but their guns is not the reason for that. [/quote]

I don’t believe Double meant AK-47 are the reason we haven’t “won.” I was trying to point that out is all.
[/quote]

Correct.

99

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The guys who wrote it specifically and explicitly wrote the second amendment to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.

[/quote]

Exactly which text do you refer to when you aver that the Second Amendment calls for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.” Not the Constitution, that’s for damn sure.

And again, it says right there in the text that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Should Brandenburg v. Ohio be overturned in your view, or should it not?[/quote]

You ever read the amendment? Or what the people who wrote it said about it. Again, these were people fighting wars on private armament. It is people like you doing somersaults with words and distractions that make it complicated to make it mean what you want it to or think it should.