Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The difference that it is the use of speech that is restricted. You are not allowed to use your speech to endanger or harm others.

In the case of arms, it is the means that are being restricted, not just the use. It is more akin to restricting access to vocal cords or less dramatically restricting the means of being heard (loudspeakers, TV, radio, a soap box). Never would we ever tolerate restrictions to the means to free speech. We do allow consequences for it’s improper USE though.

Much the way a law restricting murder isn’t a breech of the right to arms. It is a possible consequence for using it. Huge difference.

102

[quote]pushharder wrote:Don’t ever succumb to the predestination bullshit that Tirib puked out a couple of posts up.
It’s a loser’s, not a realist’s, mentality.

[/quote]I didn’t say a thing about predestination but what I said IS a realists mentality. If you think you will withstand an A-10 Warthog with it’s avenger cannons and maverick missiles with even the very best military grade small arms in the world, you need to be looked after lest you harm yourself.

103

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

Again DD.

104

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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]

Again DD.[/quote]

Sorry, missed that. And no, according to my position, there are 3 possible interpretations. That is only one.

105

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.
[/quote]

I alluded to this earlier.

I’m still of the ilk that regulation should be virtually nonexistent with violent criminals and the certifiably insane being the obvious exceptions.

There should be no need for CCW laws.

Automatic weapons ownership should be completely legal (technically it is if you pay the correct taxes and jump through all the hoops - this should be eliminated as it’s a sham).

No bans on magazine capacity.

I can think of a whole lot more.[/quote]

I can get behind the idea of no limitations on small arms. What is your opinion on heavier ordinance Push?

106

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Let’s step back here:

You said: “the second amendment [was written] to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.” [Emphasis mine]

I said: prove this.

And then you didn’t, because you couldn’t, because it isn’t true.

108

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Let’s step back here:

You said: “the second amendment [was written] to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.” [Emphasis mine]

I said: prove this.

And then you didn’t, because you couldn’t, because it isn’t true.
[/quote]

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Citizen military able to resist the government is necessary to freedom. yeah…

The practice of the government after ratification would also do it.

111

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The difference that it is the use of speech that is restricted. You are not allowed to use your speech to endanger or harm others.

In the case of arms, it is the means that are being restricted, not just the use. It is more akin to restricting access to vocal cords or less dramatically restricting the means of being heard (loudspeakers, TV, radio, a soap box). Never would we ever tolerate restrictions to the means to free speech. We do allow consequences for it’s improper USE though.

Much the way a law restricting murder isn’t a breech of the right to arms. It is a possible consequence for using it. Huge difference.[/quote]

The point is not to create a flawless analogy (no such thing exists, ever) between the First and Second Amendments and Brandenburg v. Ohio and gun control, respectively.

The point is this:

As Brandenburg v. Ohio proves beyond any doubt, interpretation can place restrictions on liberties protected under the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment protects speech without elaboration; Brandenburg criminalizes certain types of speech. Reconcile those two facts and prove your ridiculous claim that the Second Amendment explicitly calls for a militia whose firepower can rival that of the United States Army and you’ll have gotten somewhere.

That access to vocal chords cannot be restricted is nothing more than an absurd foray into the swamp of irrelevant minutia inherent in analogy. It does nothing to contradict the claim that liberties protected by the Bill of Rights can be restricted, especially in consideration of public safety. Refute that and you’ll have won. But while Brandenburg is on the books, you can’t, so this has run its course.

112

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Let’s step back here:

You said: “the second amendment [was written] to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.” [Emphasis mine]

I said: prove this.

And then you didn’t, because you couldn’t, because it isn’t true.
[/quote]

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Citizen military able to resist the government is necessary to freedom. yeah…

The practice of the government after ratification would also do it.[/quote]

The Second Amendment calls for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.”

I missed that last part in the text of the Amendment.

113

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If you think you will withstand an A-10 Warthog with it’s avenger cannons and maverick missiles with even the very best military grade small arms in the world, you need to be looked after lest you harm yourself.
[/quote]

Well, duh. That’s why it would be necesssary to fight an asymetric war. That is, you go shoot the pilot’s wife and children at their house. You kill him in a bar, not in his killer airplane. Etc.

The structure and sheer size of the USA is such that an asymetric war would be impossible to put down.

114

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Which ROE’s are you referring to specifically? [/quote]

Without limitation:

  1. the ROEs that greatly limited indirect fire and air attacks unless very specific (and impossible to confirm) criteria are met. This essentially made the fighting man-to-man and we gave up huge advantages the Russians never had (they had no precision ordinance, or at least not to the degree we have it).

  2. Russia lost because we were supplying the Afgani with weapons. Iran supplies the Afgani with weapons, training, and shelter. At the very least, significant incursions into Iran (primarily from the air – no need to hold territory) to stop the manufacture of IEDs, etc, was needed. (This was the same issue in Iraq.)

Both Afganistan and Iraq are proxy wars with Iran. Well, go bomb the shit out of their factories. It’s not like they don’t fucking want to kill us already.

I will also note the Soviet army or the time was largely conscripts, had crappy morale, and was generally shitty with shitty equipment.

115

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
you go shoot the pilot’s wife and children at their house.
[/quote]

If this thread is about the founders’ intents, it should be noted that this wasn’t one of them.

116

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The point is not to create a flawless analogy (no such thing exists, ever) between the First and Second Amendments and Brandenburg v. Ohio and gun control, respectively.

The point is this:

As Brandenburg v. Ohio proves beyond any doubt, interpretation can place restrictions on liberties protected under the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment protects speech without elaboration; Brandenburg criminalizes certain types of speech. Reconcile those two facts and prove your ridiculous claim that the Second Amendment explicitly calls for a militia whose firepower can rival that of the United States Army and you’ll have gotten somewhere.

That access to vocal chords cannot be restricted is nothing more than an absurd foray into the swamp of irrelevant minutia inherent in analogy. It does nothing to contradict the claim that liberties protected by the Bill of Rights can be restricted, especially in consideration of public safety. Refute that and you’ll have won. But while Brandenburg is on the books, you can’t, so this has run its course.[/quote]

Completely missed what I wrote. I wasn’t contradicting the analogy with free speech, I was using it.

And again, uses of the freedoms can and are restricted. Means to those freedoms aren’t or shouldn’t be. You cannot outlaw or restrict religion. You can charge a member of the “killing is the way to salvation” cult for murder. You cannot outlaw access to religious documents. I can’t dumb it down anymore.

A law restricting access to a right is completely different than one that creates consequences for its’ use.

Restricting access to guns is putting obstacles in the way of having the means to use a right, it isn’t a consequence for its’ use.

Using the analogy, we would never tolerate similar restrictions on speech.

117

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
you go shoot the pilot’s wife and children at their house.
[/quote]

If this thread is about the founders’ intents, it should be noted that this wasn’t one of them.[/quote]

You probably need to go read up on the American revolution a bit more if you don’t think the Colonist fought dirty as hell.

118

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
Which ROE’s are you referring to specifically? [/quote]

Without limitation:

  1. the ROEs that greatly limited indirect fire and air attacks unless very specific (and impossible to confirm) criteria are met. This essentially made the fighting man-to-man and we gave up huge advantages the Russians never had (they had no precision ordinance, or at least not to the degree we have it).

  2. Russia lost because we were supplying the Afgani with weapons. Iran supplies the Afgani with weapons, training, and shelter. At the very least, significant incursions into Iran (primarily from the air – no need to hold territory) to stop the manufacture of IEDs, etc, was needed. (This was the same issue in Iraq.)

Both Afganistan and Iraq are proxy wars with Iran. Well, go bomb the shit out of their factories. It’s not like they don’t fucking want to kill us already.

[/quote]

Thanks for the response. 1. I thought you were going to refer to that ROE. 2. I was aware of Iran’s interference in Iraq but not in Afghanistan. I had thought that most of the blame for that rested with Pakistan in the East, particularly the ISI.

119

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Let’s step back here:

You said: “the second amendment [was written] to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text.” [Emphasis mine]

I said: prove this.

And then you didn’t, because you couldn’t, because it isn’t true.
[/quote]

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Citizen military able to resist the government is necessary to freedom. yeah…

The practice of the government after ratification would also do it.[/quote]

The Second Amendment calls for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government.”

I missed that last part in the text of the Amendment.[/quote]

You’ll apparently need to refer to a dictionary.

120

Thought Peter Wehner had a nice article on Bob Costas and his political talk during the game. Seems Costas is heading down the Howard Cosell path.

“Bob Costas, America?s Latest Philosopher/Sports Commentator”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/04/bob-costas-americas-latest-philosophersports-commentator/