[quote] pushharder wrote:
What would a similar definition be in regards to the freedom of speech, i.e., what is the absolute right of speaking freely?[/quote]
Uh, it would be similar - the right to say whatever I want, whenever I want, and it has always been since the Founding?
If you are looking to make a point about this, you may want just go ahead an offer it up. Not sure I am following you, and this is a lot of wind up for no pitch.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In other words, we all know libel, slander, yelling “fire” in a theater, etc., are out of bounds when it comes to speech. [/quote]
Heck, let’s be honest here: Speech is not criminalized in even these cases. Libel(written or printed form) and slander(oral, or other transient form) are just forms of defamation-someone’s reputation must be damaged(and the claim must be false, of course). Yelling “Fire” in a theater is also not illegal, but if it causes a panic and puts people in imminent danger, one can be punished for creating such a situation. In other words, only the effects of speech are punishable.
I can yell “Fire” in a crowded theater all day as long as nobody believes me or reacts to it.
[quote] pushharder wrote:
When is the right “to say whatever I want, whenever I want, and it has always been since the Founding,” regulated?
In other words, we all know libel, slander, yelling “fire” in a theater, etc., are out of bounds when it comes to speech. But in order for our society to prevent those crimes do we require all citizens who wish to speak freely to fill out a form and prove they are a safe risk not to commit those crimes? Or do we prosecute them AFTER they have done so and with no licensing system in place?
Do we need an ATF stamp for our printing presses and computer keyboards?
Does a person need a permit before worshiping as he pleases?
Can a state do these things? The feds?[/quote]
Well, there are a few things to unpack. First, you start from a false premise, at least with respect to me. I don’think either right is absolute.
But, to the point - the reason the regulation of conduct differ between the two rights is that they…deal with two different kinds of conduct that have different impacts on public safety. You seem to take the position that because both are considered wrapped up in rights that they must be treated the same way. That’s been my whole point all along - it’s never been that simple.
Speech doesn’t carry the same kinds of troubles and worries on public safety that owning nad misusing a firearm does. Speech doesn’t kill or mutilate people, nor is it an instrumentality that makes certain crimes worse and more dangerous to the public. Guns do. And the danger is considered high enough that after-the-fact remedies are insufficient to right the wrong done by them - as in, suing civilly for damages, like you would for libel or slander (which are not crimes). At some point, it is arguably in the public interest to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place…hence regulations regarding ownership, etc.
Speech doesn’t implicate the kinds of public danger requiring prevention. Being slandered sucks, but it doesn’t end anyone’s life. Guns do, and have since the birth of the country, which is why states have exercised their police powers to try and strike a balance between the right to own and minimizing the risk to public safety.
In any event, speech is actually regulated ro a certain extent - time, place, and mannner restrictions apply. But generally, speech doesn’t do the kind of irreparable harm that firearms do, so after-the-fact remedies are tolerable.
So, different conduct gets different treatment. Treating unlike things alike is irrational. The rights at issue have never been absolute, and they aren’t today.
And, of course, speech can be actually be prevented through prior restraint if the potential harm is so great that dealing with the harm it caused after-the-fact is intolerable (in heightened circumstances, like national security.)
[quote] thunderbolt23 wrote:
But generally, speech doesn’t do the kind of irreparable harm that firearms do, so after-the-fact remedies are tolerable.
[/quote]
Not for Gen Y apparently. They require “trigger warnings” or they have an emotional breakdown and there are an ever increasing number of taboo words and phrases that cause irreparable emotional damage. Words and phrases that you or I may not even be aware are taboo. But ignorance is no defence and so the “patriarchy” lives in a state of constant fear and self censorship. Such an environment is about as conducive to free speech as turds are to pleasant fragrances.
Edited
Words have moved more men than bullets.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Words have moved more men than bullets. [/quote]
They don’t move men out of the way though, that’s the problem.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Words have moved more men than bullets. [/quote]
They don’t move men out of the way though, that’s the problem.[/quote]
Just in regards to which right is more dangerous. A majority of history’s bloodshed is less about weapons and more about speech.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Words have moved more men than bullets. [/quote]
They don’t move men out of the way though, that’s the problem.[/quote]
Just in regards to which right is more dangerous. A majority of history’s bloodshed is less about weapons and more about speech.
[/quote]
Well, of course. People don’t go to war over “weapons” do they? Weapons are merely instruments of war not the cause of wars.
Well, I covered some of this generally in previous threads a while ago, but here are some specific examples:
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts banned possession of a firearm who failed to swear a loyalty oath â?? Act of Apr. 1, 1778 ch. LXI, 2, 5, 1777-1778 Pa. Laws 123, 126; Act of Mar. 14, 1776 ch. VII, 1775-1776 Mass. Acts 31 [in Massachusetts, penalty was to be â??disarmed. . .[of] all such Arms, Ammunition and Warlike Implements, as by the strictest Search can be found in his Possession of belonging to him.â??]
Punishing and disarming rioters who were armed with weapons â?? Act of Feb. 24, 1797 ch. DCXXXVII Section 1, 1797 N.J. Laws 179, 179
Punishing and dismarming disorderly persons apprehended while carrying â??offensiveâ?? weapons such as pistols â?? Act of June, 1799 ch. DCCCVI Section 2, 1799 N.J. Laws 561, 562
James Madisonâ??s proposal to prevent unlawful killing of deer stated that a person â??who bear[s] as gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military dutyâ?? would be penalized â?? A Bill for the Preservation of Deer (1785) [never enacted]
Members of Shaysâ?? Rebellion that wanted a pardon had to take an oath of allegiance and surrender his arms to the state for a period of three years â?? Act of Feb. 16, 1787 ch. VI, Mass. Acts 555 [importantly, these individuals were not required to surrender important rights such as freedom of speech or exercise of religion]
As a requirement of militia law, Massachusetts can require citizens to muster and present their privately held arms for inspection by the state â?? Mass. Acts Section 9, 1775-1776
Statutes controlling the storage of gunpowder. Specifically, states enacted limits on the amount of gunpowder a person could be possess, and anything beyond that had to be stored in the public magazine. Example: Act of June 26, 1792 ch. X, 1792 Mass. Acts 208; Act of Apr. 13, 1784, ch. 28, 1784 N.Y. Laws 627.
States enacted regulation as to how the personal amount of gunpowder kept in his home must be stored: For example, in New York, a person had to separate powder into containers limited to no more than seven pounds of powder each [why? Danger to public safety if huge amounts of powder are collected in one place and explodes]
After the adoption of the federal Constitution, state and local firearm safety laws grew instead of shrinking. In the early 1800s, states began banning the carrying concealed weapons. Examples: Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia. Virginia even went so far as to say that if a person was tried for murder or a felony and a concealed weapon was used in furtherance of the murder or felony, and the person was acquitted of the murder and felony on a claim of self-defense, that person could still be charged with violating the concealed weapon ban. 1838 Va. Acts ch. 101 at 76.
Georgia and Tennessee actually banned the sale of concealed weapons. Act of Dec. 25, 1837, 1837 Ga. Laws 90; Act of Jan. 27, 1838 ch. CXXXVII, 1837-1838 Tenn. Pub. Acts 200 (focused on Bowie knives and the like)
States enacted time, place and manner laws outlawing certain places where a person could not discharge a weapon.
*These examples were pulled research done in a law review article â??A Well Regulated Right,â?? Cornell & Dino, Fordham Law Review , Volume 73, Issue 2, 2004.
Note: all these examples are pre-Civil War. Imagine each of them with a modern analog. Refuse to swear loyalty to the state? We take your guns. Want to have lots of extra ammunition in your storage? Sorry â?? the state says you can have up to 5 boxes, but the rest have to be stored in a public space.
Point? The original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms (in connection with the stateâ??s police powers, not the Second Amendment, because it didnâ??t apply) was that states had the right to regulate the possession and use of arms in the name of public safety. Some states may have done more, some states may have done less, but what matters is that states enjoyed the right to act, subject to their own state constitutions.
Which has been my original point all along â?? prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, there was simply no debate as to whether the states could and did regulate in this space, and contrary to your statement that there is â??virtually no gun control of any kind by any state or the federal government until 1934â?? is flatly false.
More later, as time permits.
This seems appropriate
[quote] pushharder wrote:
You don’t realize that most of your post supports my position? Really?
[/quote]
No, it doesn’t help you. States clearly beloved prior to the Reconstruction Amendments that they had state police powers to regulate possession and use if arms in the name of public safety. It is not subject to dispute.
States generally pro-arms (for lack of a better term) during that time period - of course they were, they needed to have citizens ready for the militia. But they were also pro-public safety, and began regulating possession and use of arms as necessary to secure domestic peace. Thus, the trade-off between liberty and security was present even in the earliest days on the country.
So, as a matter of “original intent”, states understood they had the right to regulate from the very beginning.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Members of Shays’ Rebellion that wanted a pardon had to take an oath of allegiance and surrender his arms to the state for a period of three years- Act of Feb. 16, 1787 ch. VI, Mass. Acts 555 [importantly, these individuals were not required to surrender important rights such as freedom of speech or exercise of religion]
[/quote]
I’ll let you and push debate the rest, but this says volumes about how far America has…fallen? I wonder how long one would have to surrender his arms today for participating in such a movement.
Addition: Laws similar to almost(the exception is probably the Massachusetts law regarding inspection) all of those listed exist today.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’ll let you and push debate the rest, but this says volumes about how far America has…fallen? I wonder how long one would have to surrender his arms today for participating in such a movement…[/quote]
That’s a fair debate, in terms of policy - as in, what should the penalty be, how harsh, should we even have one, etc.?
Implicit in that policy debate is an understanding that a state can pass such a law, at least from the standpoint of original understanding of state police powers.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s a fair debate, in terms of policy - as in, what should the penalty be, how harsh, should we even have one, etc.?
Implicit in that policy debate is an understanding that a state can pass such a law, at least from the standpoint of original understanding of state police powers.
[/quote]
The problem is that almost all of those laws punish actions taken with(or while in possession of) firearms and not the possession of firearms alone. State laws still differ in regards to concealed weapons, open carry, etc.