[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Socratic enquiry? I see it as a method of co-discovery, yes? [/quote]
How can it be a method of co-discovery if the inquiring person is only seeking to produce contradiction? Can a skillful inquirer not produce contradiction from statements of plain fact?[/quote]
Agreed. In any works by Socrates, I don’t recall him “discovering” things along with the readers. He is specifically intending to teach the reader as a student, not as a companion, or peer.
[text] The Vanity Fair article attempts, badly, to define the language that would allow the right of gun ownership, and at the same stroke limit that right. My usual question holds: who decides, and by what right?[/quote]
Excellent stuff, and precisely right - and your ultimate question is exactly the one I was attempting to address in reference to the article.
Who decides and by waht right? Likely, step one of answering that question is figuring out the frame work of “by what right?”. That is the query posed by the article, and a good one (despite the rest of the article): if states have the right without objection to pass laws restricting the rights of the mentally ill from owning guns in the name of public safety, how far does this right extend?
Preliminarily - and the point I was making - the existence of this exercise of unobjectionable restriction demonstrates that the right to guns is not an absolute one. It can’t be, because if the right was absolute, states couldn’t restrict the mentally ill from owning guns (just as they could not deny a mentally ill person’s right to insist on a warrant before cops entered his house).
The author - clearly no fan of guns or gun rights - was savvy to recognize this distinction. And so does the Supreme Court, for that matter - in the most recent gun rights cases, they always keep the door open for “reasonable” restrictions in the name of public safety, etc.
But in order to determine the scope of the right to decide, we must first decide if there is a right for the states to decide at all.
The problem here is that this is a conversation - this is not a lecture from Thunderbolt.[/quote]
I’m not lecturing - I am asking direct questions in hopes of a direct response in order to see if there is any consensus on the issue of the scope of a state’s right to restrict gun laws in the name of public safety.
Made it up? No. Explained in my own words, yes.[/quote]
Well, what is the basis for it, then? Where in the text of the Constitution or historical understanding is that position taken, that felons forfeit their status as “one of the people” as a constitutional matter?
Has anyone else ever taken this position that you are asserting now? I’d like to learn more about it.
Well, yes, in the general sense, in the sense that it says a person can lose their life, liberty, or property so long as they are afforded due process of law.
But more specifically, can a state restrict other rights of felons on this basis that a felon no longer is “one of the people”? Can a state, for example, restrict a felon’s First Amendment rights? Can a state, for example, pass a law that says you don’t need a warrant to search a felon’s house?
Anybody can ask a bunch of questions designed to point out contradiction. Truth of the matter is that by never stating an assertion you can never be right, you can only prove that there are flaws in your opponent’s argument. It’s a pansy-assed way to argue.[/quote]
Anybody can ask a bunch of questions designed to point out contradiction. Truth of the matter is that by never stating an assertion you can never be right, you can only prove that there are flaws in your opponent’s argument. It’s a pansy-assed way to argue.[/quote]
No one is doing that around here.[/quote]
Your post immediately preceding this contains seven question marks and two periods. And you still haven’t posted a solid assertion of your own.
Your post immediately preceding this contains seven question marks and two periods. And you still haven’t posted a solid assertion of your own.[/quote]
No? You mean I didn’t write this in a post above to Alpha F?
Made it up? No. Explained in my own words, yes.[/quote]
Well, what is the basis for it, then? Where in the text of the Constitution or historical understanding is that position taken, that felons forfeit their status as “one of the people” as a constitutional matter?
Has anyone else ever taken this position that you are asserting now? I’d like to learn more about it.
Well, yes, in the general sense, in the sense that it says a person can lose their life, liberty, or property so long as they are afforded due process of law.
But more specifically, can a state restrict other rights of felons on this basis that a felon no longer is “one of the people”? Can a state, for example, restrict a felon’s First Amendment rights? Can a state, for example, pass a law that says you don’t need a warrant to search a felon’s house?
If not, why not?[/quote]
I think him phrasing it as a felon no longer being “one of the people” is a bad choice of words. But certainly, a felon DOES lose certain rights, due to the fact that they have violated the rights of others. Whether they lose 1st amendment rights, 2nd amendment rights, etc, depends on the nature of the crime, and what those rights entail.
For example, 1st amendment rights; working with a felon currently imprisoned…
The felon still isn’t prohibited with regard to practicing his religion
He has freedom of speech to the same degree as most any citizen, just within the confines of the prison
Obviously, being in prison, he won’t really be involved in working for the press, since that is a job, and of course you’re more or less kept from working your job (GENERALLY) while in prison…so this one is sort of N/A
His right to peaceably assemble is pretty well restricted, due to the nature of prison; I would think the reasoning behind this is apparent
If he is in prison for governmental grievances, he certainly will have a chance to fight back in court
Second amendment is more difficult naturally…but I do NOT think that just by virtue of being labelled a felon (as the term currently stands), one should be restricted from owning firearms for self-defense, certainly not for the rest of their lives either. MAYBE some sort of probationary period from owning guns after prison could be effective, but I’d have to give that one more thought.
The problem here is that this is a conversation - this is not a lecture from Thunderbolt.[/quote]
I’m not lecturing - I am asking direct questions in hopes of a direct response in order to see if there is any consensus on the issue of the scope of a state’s right to restrict gun laws in the name of public safety.[/quote]
I am going to trust you that you are approaching this as an open enquiry and not " a student is not greater than his master" attitude.
No. The state does not have a right to restrict gun laws in the name of public safety.
The state does not have a right to use liberty as a means to an end that is Good for the “collective will”.
The state does not have a right to the salami approach.
The state is placed in an appointed position of regulated authority by the good standing citizens that support that system.
No. The state does not have a right to regulate those who have a proven record of self-regulation.
(a proven record of responsible and law abiding stand in society: those are the pillars of a strong society).
A search conducted without a valid warrant can (and most likely will) result in any evidence obtained in that search to be thrown out.
Now this can be a gamble for the prosecution, but a valuable gamble if there is a trial bu jury, for the jury’s minds will already be tainted.
I saw this common in the midwest, where my case was out of, where the police literally took a pen and scribbled a new address with a pen over a different address written on the search warrant.
I pointed this out to the Public Defender, and there was such little evidence left, the prosecutor was left with a plea deal for probation.
Felons cannot be in possession of a firearm. They cannot have one in their home, even if belongs to someone else. They cannot discharge a firearm, not even a crossbow, or any weapon that uses any form of explosive discharge.
Any felon caught with a firearm on their person or property is given an automatic nickel (5 yrs in the Federal Can), with no good time behavior or halfway house. They will also not be allowed in an institution with a security level lower than what is considered “low”, meaning they will never see a minimum like Club Fed or Camp Cupcake.
This involves any felony, tax evasion, non-violent drug charges, all apply.
Basically I am left with a slingshot.
Made it up? No. Explained in my own words, yes.[/quote]
Well, what is the basis for it, then? Where in the text of the Constitution or historical understanding is that position taken, that felons forfeit their status as “one of the people” as a constitutional matter?
Has anyone else ever taken this position that you are asserting now? I’d like to learn more about it.
Well, yes, in the general sense, in the sense that it says a person can lose their life, liberty, or property so long as they are afforded due process of law.
But more specifically, can a state restrict other rights of felons on this basis that a felon no longer is “one of the people”? Can a state, for example, restrict a felon’s First Amendment rights? Can a state, for example, pass a law that says you don’t need a warrant to search a felon’s house?
If not, why not?[/quote]
I think him phrasing it as a felon no longer being “one of the people” is a bad choice of words. But certainly, a felon DOES lose certain rights, due to the fact that they have violated the rights of others. Whether they lose 1st amendment rights, 2nd amendment rights, etc, depends on the nature of the crime, and what those rights entail.
For example, 1st amendment rights; working with a felon currently imprisoned…
The felon still isn’t prohibited with regard to practicing his religion
He has freedom of speech to the same degree as most any citizen, just within the confines of the prison
Obviously, being in prison, he won’t really be involved in working for the press, since that is a job, and of course you’re more or less kept from working your job (GENERALLY) while in prison…so this one is sort of N/A
His right to peaceably assemble is pretty well restricted, due to the nature of prison; I would think the reasoning behind this is apparent
If he is in prison for governmental grievances, he certainly will have a chance to fight back in court
Second amendment is more difficult naturally…but I do NOT think that just by virtue of being labelled a felon (as the term currently stands), one should be restricted from owning firearms for self-defense, certainly not for the rest of their lives either. MAYBE some sort of probationary period from owning guns after prison could be effective, but I’d have to give that one more thought. [/quote]
Solid. I agree completely.
See, tb23? That’s what a real, well-thought-out argument looks like.
Felons cannot be in possession of a firearm. They cannot have one in their home, even if belongs to someone else. They cannot discharge a firearm, not even a crossbow, or any weapon that uses any form of explosive discharge.
Any felon caught with a firearm on their person or property is given an automatic nickel (5 yrs in the Federal Can), with no good time behavior or halfway house. They will also not be allowed in an institution with a security level lower than what is considered “low”, meaning they will never see a minimum like Club Fed or Camp Cupcake.
This involves any felony, tax evasion, non-violent drug charges, all apply.
Basically I am left with a slingshot.[/quote]
This is what concerns me, specifically as pertaining to non-violent felons. The punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime. With violent offenders, I can’t help but see it (to some degree) as “He served his time in prison, did his community service without incident, etc, but now that he’s free he still doesn’t have the right to defend himself”. Wut? Like I mentioned before, I could maybe see a probationary period of say, a year or two after jail, during which if (s)he stays out of any and all trouble (aside from crap like parking violations), they can again own firearms, aka have now 100% rejoined society. Having a lifelong prohibition from owning something everybody else has the right to, seems like saying “Yeah you were punished already, BUT IT WASN’T ENOUGH!”.
To me, it kinda comes off as an admission that the prison system doesn’t do anything to help get prisoners back on track, and/or appropriately punish crimes.
I don’t think there’s really a correlation between the two. There are just inherent realities of American politics. Gun violence is seen as an opportunity for politicians. They can prey on emotions to get support for it, it makes a nice headline and they can claim success by smiling in a picture next to guns that have been seized. And if you want to move ahead in the party you’ve to play partisan politics, you wont move ahead going against the current. In true politician style it’s something entirely self-serving without really accomplishing anything.
I don’t think there’s really a correlation between the two. There are just inherent realities of American politics. Gun violence is seen as an opportunity for politicians. They can prey on emotions to get support for it, it makes a nice headline and they can claim success by smiling in a picture next to guns that have been seized. And if you want to move ahead in the party you’ve to play partisan politics, you wont move ahead going against the current. In true politician style it’s something entirely self-serving without really accomplishing anything.
[/quote]
While there may or may not be a correlation in this example by raj, the political part you talk about is a sad result of a broken, bent system. With laws as they currently are, and societal factors, it is a sad reality that most of the qualities that matter in political success aren’t relevant to success in leadership.
For example, 1st amendment rights; working with a felon currently imprisoned…[/quote]
You’re confused, this isn’t an issue. When a prison is incarcerated, they unquentionably have their rights proscribed. We’re talking about after they have done their time.
Ok, but it’s a different question you’re answering: you’re saying what we should dp for felons re: gun restrictions. The first question is: can a state restrict the right of a felon (or the mentally ill, for that matter) to own arms in light of the Second Amendment?
I’m fine with discussion about what we should do re: restrictions - once we’ve established that we can do it.
For example, 1st amendment rights; working with a felon currently imprisoned…[/quote]
You’re confused, this isn’t an issue. When a prison is incarcerated, they unquentionably have their rights proscribed. We’re talking about after they have done their time.
Ok, but it’s a different question you’re answering: you’re saying what we should dp for felons re: gun restrictions. The first question is: can a state restrict the right of a felon (or the mentally ill, for that matter) to own arms in light of the Second Amendment?
I’m fine with discussion about what we should do re: restrictions - once we’ve established that we can do it.[/quote]
Lol well that’s a pretty stupid question on your part, to be blunt. Obviously we CAN restrict felons and mentally ill from owning firearms, because they already DO!
What can be done need be no more complicated in this situation than looking at what is being done.
You’ve got it backwards; the important thing is figuring out what SHOULD be done. The “can” part is blindingly clear.
No. The state does not have a right to restrict gun laws in the name of public safety.[/quote]
Hmmmm. I’m not sure the above statement is consistent with this statement:
As I read your second sentence, the state does have a right to evaluate a citizen (or group of citizens by category) and determine whether that person(s) has a “proven record of responsible and law abiding” behavior, and if they don’t, the state may restrict their right to gun ownership.
The condition to enjoyment of the right is being a “responsible and law abiding” person. So, the right is conditional. If you don’t meet the condition, the state may proscribe that right.
Am I reading you correctly so far?
If this is so, then the state does have a right to restrict gun laws in the name of public safety - contrary to your first sentence - because the entire point of restricting people who are not “responsible and law abiding” citizens (however defined) is to protect society from these irresponsible citizens and their likely dangeous misuse of guns. That is the entire point - public safety.
You’re confused, this isn’t an issue. When a prison is incarcerated, they unquentionably have their rights proscribed. We’re talking about after they have done their time.
[/quote]
Are you for real? Are you saying prisoners don’t have any rights while incarcerated?