I was applying reductio ad absurdum to the following:
“And just like when a gun is used for something wrong (murder, robbery, etc), the person is punished, when someone uses words in an evil manner (slander, false accusations, etc), they can be punished. Neither the guns nor the words are inherently evil, so neither should be illegal. When either is USED for evil, the people at fault need to be punished.”
Not to the letter of the Second Amendment.
Get things straight in your head before wasting time shadow-boxing an argument that doesn’t exist and was never made.[/quote]
This would probably be rightly considered a hi-jack, to change the discussion to “What manner of arms should the citizenry possess?”. Not to mention, my mind isn’t made up on that subject yet. I’m still undecided as to whether it’s reasonable that citizens should have LITERALLY whatever weapons are necessary to overthrow the government if need be, or if that would defeat the purpose of government. It’s a tough issue. Well, to anyone that can actually come to the subject with an open mind. Many here obviously cannot. [/quote]
Fair enough, though I’d argue that “what manner of arms should the citizenry possess?” is the exact question that arises from a debate on gun control.
The First Amendment protects citizens from punitive government action as a consequence of that citizen’s speech and/or writing.[/quote]
Aaah, but see, this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. 1A protects citizens from being prevented from speaking or writing their views and opinions. [/quote]
Absolutely not.
“Congress shall make no law…”
No law can affect the ability to speak. A law can, however, criminalize speech–that is, punish speech after it’s been spoken. And that is exactly what the First Amendment addresses. The writings of the founders make this abundantly clear.
So: the First Amendment prohibits legal punishment for speech. Brandenburg allows for legal punishment of speech in certain circumstances, namely when public safety necessitates it. Brandenburg, in other words, sets boundaries to a right which is presented without boundaries in the Bill of Rights.
A gun control bill would be as legitimate as Brandenburg. Which is not to say it will be effective or smart–but it will be exactly as legitimate.
Defamation, as an aside, is not a crime.
[/quote]
Stop it with this Brandenburg nonsense. Even if you are running with the two-pronged test used by the USSC:
(1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
…Brandenburg is STILL an expansion of free speech.
You are straining like a lame mule pulling a plow in heavy sod to try and make what amounts to an extremely thin case for extrapolating Brandenburg as some kind of tool for justifying 2nd Amendment limits.
Quit before the egg on your face gets so thick you’ll need a shovel to clean up with.[/quote]
The argument is solid and you know that it is. And furthermore you’re dancing around the edges of it on the fantastically irrelevant grounds that the alternative–Ohio’s censorship law–was harsher on speech rights and was struck down–a point of whose total irrelevance I hope you’re aware.
That Brandenburg protects inflammatory speech is absolutely superfluous–inflammatory speech or speech that advocates violence, as a subset of speech, was already protected under the First Amendment. The element of Brandenburg that is relevant to us in this thread is the abridgment of particular kinds of speech–namely, the criminalization of speech intended to incite imminent lawless action–which would otherwise seem to fall under the broader and Constitutionally protected category of speech in general. I’ll lay it out as a logical argument and see if you can refute any of it:
[b]
The Bill of Rights prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech.”
Brandenburg v. Ohio allows the government to criminalize–to abridge–speech that might incite imminent lawless action.
Speech that might incite imminent lawless action is a particular subset of speech in general, which is protected without elaboration by the First Amendment.
Therefore, Brandenburg v. Ohio curtails a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the name of public safety. It sets a boundary where none was set by the Founders.
[/b]
[/quote]
Re-posted so that Push or anybody who wants to can address it.
As for your other post, if your argument had no relevance to interpretation of the Second Amendment but was only a hypothetical exercise, then your argument may have been of value to few if any. [/quote]
You are being unbelievably obtuse.[/quote]
Projection. [quote]
The post was [b]in response to a very specific point made by another poster[/b]. It was of value to the poster with whom I was engaged in discussion [/quote]
I understood Pushharder say it was worthless, but I will stand corrected by him if that was not the case:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Fissile material is not inherently evil, either. Should someone with the financial means to procure and process it be allowed to do so?
[/quote]
Here we go again with the tired and weak debate strategy that says, "Shucks, if we can’t ban AR-15’s we wouldn’t be able to ban ICBM’s. [/quote]
This would probably be rightly considered a hi-jack, to change the discussion to “What manner of arms should the citizenry possess?”. Not to mention, my mind isn’t made up on that subject yet. I’m still undecided as to whether it’s reasonable that citizens should have LITERALLY whatever weapons are necessary to overthrow the government if need be, or if that would defeat the purpose of government. It’s a tough issue. Well, to anyone that can actually come to the subject with an open mind. Many here obviously cannot. [/quote]
As for your other post, if your argument had no relevance to interpretation of the Second Amendment but was only a hypothetical exercise, then your argument may have been of value to few if any. [/quote]
You are being unbelievably obtuse.[/quote]
Projection. [quote]
The post was [b]in response to a very specific point made by another poster[/b]. It was of value to the poster with whom I was engaged in discussion [/quote]
I understood Pusharder say it was worthless, but I will stand corrected by him if that was not the case:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Fissile material is not inherently evil, either. Should someone with the financial means to procure and process it be allowed to do so?
[/quote]
Here we go again with the tired and weak debate strategy that says, "Shucks, if we can’t ban AR-15’s we wouldn’t be able to ban ICBM’s. [/quote]
[/quote]
What?
Push’s response to me was exactly as nonsensical as yours. His, though, had the slightly redemptive characteristic of having been a general, curmudgeonly whine rather than a specific “LOOK I GOT YOU!”
Anyway, I will recap one last time: Hungry said something, I responded to his words, which if you still aren’t understanding, were not the words of the Second Amendment. They were HIS words. And this is all that needs to be said.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Thomas Jefferson in response to Shays’ Rebellion
“But the true barriers of our liberty in this country are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed. Seventeen distinct States, amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration.”
-Thomas Jefferson
(Do states still have ANY powers that can’t be superceded by the federal government?)[/quote]
That is something I abhor; the way Federal gov’t is considered the be-all end-all of authority. At least if individual states are allowed more power, then varying states can mimic the successful ones’ style of governing, learn from each other, etc. When all states are more or less forced to govern the same, it doesn’t allow for ideas like that. [/quote]
States have more autonomy than most think. I think a lot of Federal ‘bullying’ is just tied to mandates for states to follow to receive Federal dollars.
More states need to tell the Feds to go F*)(( themselves more often and become less dependent on Fed dollars.
Some people want to overthrow the government. Right now.
Give them a way to do it, and they will.
[/quote]
They already have a way, it is just that the boiling point has not yet been reached.
300 million guns in circulation, with a population who could very easily find themselves with nothing to lose, makes for a dangerous situation.
We passed a massive tax increase last November, which was highly debated and controversial. It barely passed, and within 2 days after the election, some moron Democrat suggested 4 more tax increases only to be met with so much scrutiny he was frightened for his life.
If the government knew there was no recourse for their actions, they would control everything you did.
This bullshit about “stopping the violence” is just the cover story for wanting to remove guns from the people.
No one noticed that Feinstein’s NEW assault weapons ban contains 120 other types of “assault weapons”, 102 more than her original 1994 proposal. The original banned 18 types of weapons.
The Bill of Rights prohibits government from “abridging the freedom of speech.”
Brandenburg v. Ohio allows the government to criminalize–to abridge–speech that might incite imminent lawless action.
Speech that might incite imminent lawless action is a particular subset of speech in general, which is protected without elaboration by the First Amendment.
Therefore, Brandenburg v. Ohio curtails a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the name of public safety. It sets a boundary where none was set by the Founders.
[/b]
Re-posted so that Push or anybody who wants to can address it.[/quote]
Truly, the more I’m thinking this over, I increasingly am leaning towards ANY curtailing of speech being wrong. Every example I’ve tried to think of that could support such a thing doesn’t hold water in the big picture.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
States have more autonomy than most think. I think a lot of Federal ‘bullying’ is just tied to mandates for states to follow to receive Federal dollars.
More states need to tell the Feds to go F*)(( themselves more often and become less dependent on Fed dollars.
[/quote]
Good point. I suppose the argument could be made that the issue is states, just like individuals, ALLOWING themselves to be bought off.
A hunter’s take on gun control and the NRA.[/quote]
That author makes several bad arguments which are neither the root of the debate, nor indeed reflective of reality. For a rebuttal I would refer you to this article by Larry Correia:
It is very long but very thorough, with a bit of a brash style of writing which I enjoy (but which does not interfere with his arguments)[/quote]
Really? What bad arguments does he make and how are they not reflective of reality? I’m not sure how the blog you posted is a rebuttal at all to what this article is about. Here is the thesis from the article.
“Unfortunately, when the details of upcoming bills get hashed out behind closed doors later this year, there probably won’t be anyone in the room to represent gun owners like me. We sportsmen have done ourselves a disservice by allowing the National Rifle Association to become synonymous with gun owners. The NRA’s outright rejection of almost all gun control is unreasonable. Hunters have a lot to lose in the upcoming debate over gun legislation. But because we’re already subject to firearm regulations by our state fish and game agencies, we have a lot to offer the debate, too.”[/quote]
No. The fundamental argument he makes is this: “I think stricter gun control is long overdue”
That is his central thesis: we need stricter gun control. He uses his standing as a hunter to make a pro gun control stance, even if in general. and later "I believe that most people are capable of understanding the difference between, say, a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity barrel magazine like the one used in Newtown and a pump-action shotgun. " Then he talks about how a high capacity magazine ban is “reasonable”.
These points are all addressed in the blog I linked–stricter gun control: doesn’t work if you look at the statistics. The whole damn blog was about that, but in the strict sense we refer to the argument on banning high capacity magazines and “semi automatic rifles”. Both points are addressed in the blog. Further, his quote “NRA’s outright rejection of almost all gun control is unreasonable”. He doesn’t say why, of course, and because he doesn’t say why his stance is materially the same as that flawed stance which a number of people here have already pointed out…even though we are currently having a row about the USC.
I agree with this, except for the last sentence. Hunters need to be heard, and if one feels that the NRA is not doing a good job of representing their views then I agree that they should get a group of people together that DO, and talk to legislators. However the last sentence is faulty and Larry Correia writes at length about many of the reasons why, especially if you looked at the internal links from other articles he’s written and referenced in the blog. The regulations being proposed are shoddy, emotionally driven, and have no basis in the reality of situations–in fact, they don’t stop anything. Larry talks specifically about the last magazine ban, and “assault rifles”.
Should be and “are allowed” are two different things. Yes, they should be responsible. However the fact that some are not has absolutely zero bearing on the idea that we should restrict EVERYBODY’S rights because “some are stupid”. A materially relevant quote here: “it will be found an unwise and unjust jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition that he may abuse it.” Cromwell, 1654, Parliamentary address. That is not the way freedom works. ONCE it has been abused, then we remand the offender and punish him. The essential element of freedom is the ability to make mistakes and be judged for them, not to be prevented from taking responsibility for your own self in the first place.
Besides which, the legislation being discussed, or having been passed in the 1990s previously, did absolutely nothing! They even commissioned a committee in D.C. to look at the last assault weapons ban…who found it to have done nothing.
Were I to be violent, and shoot one of them on the pretext of protecting a life, no, they are not felons (because they have not stood trial), and no, I do not have the facts on my side because I do not know them. [/quote]
Kicking an unconscious person in the head while they are laying on the ground is aggravated assault, which is a felony. You do not need to know what the person on the ground has done, all that matters is that two people are kicking him in the head, which could kill him.
You do not have to wait for someone to be convicted of felony burglary before you shoot them for kicking your door down in the middle of the night. He is in the act of committing a felony, therefore he is a felon, and you are justified.
[quote]I have been subjected to the harassment of jack-booted armed thugs with badges. And nevertheless, I still rely on a society of laws to protect me from injustice, in part because I do not trust self-appointed “guardians” with delusions of omniscience of the truth, justice, or of God’s laws.
[/quote]
I hope you see the irony in this statement. A society of laws is a good thing. I am not against government and I am not against having law enforcement officials.
I am against a government that does not serve it’s people. I am against a government that treats every citizen as if they were a criminal. I am against a government whose members are above the law, as if they were a ruling class entitled to treat their citizens as cattle.
If you have been subjected to the harassment of jack-booted armed thugs with badges, and you still believe that they should be the only ones trusted with guns; we call that a ‘willing victim’. They are the “guardians” you mentioned.
In this “interview” Alex Jones proves himself to be an emotional heap of resentment, confusion, insecurity and incoherence. At no point in the interview did he answer a single question, let alone admit that the gun murder rate is 52 times higher per capita in America than in England. His time on CNN only goes to show that the groups that have ardently touted their rights to own guns are fearful and irrational.
I reject your idea that because the idea of gun control is reaching the middle that it means gun control is losing steam. Quite the contrary, I think it means there will be an attempt to solve the issue soon. For example, I believe I have grown from reacting to this latest event. I now think that teachers should have a way to protect their kids, possibly with handguns. I also feel, however, that guns should be owned responsibly, should be made less available to the general public, and should have stricter regulations. I would be happy to elucidate those regulations.
[/quote]
Agree with you on both counts here. Jones is a lunatic that does nobody on “his side” of the gun control issue any favors. Remember the game that was played and lost in the election: the PR game. The popular and cool game. It might be shitty and it might be completely irrelevant from a Constitutionally based argument, but it is very real and it is very powerful in framing the debate on laws…which will LEAD to the Constituional debate and further than that the selection of Justices to interpret in years to come.
Agree that the idea of gun control is actually getting MORE plausible the less rhetoric is spewed…anti-gun rhetoric inflames reaction from people who feel threatened by the idea that the government will–foolishly and uselessly from a public policy stand point in my view, but grandly effective from a “federal power grab” standpoint–restrict their available arms. They get noisy, they call senators, they demonstrate, they donate to the NRA. BUT–calm the rhetoric down, bring the illusion to the center, and the inflammation goes away, the sense of danger goes away, and the previously angry gun owners and pro gun people start to go about their business. THIS is when the chance to pass legislation reaches a high point, because resistance to the idea has waned…People have “relieved their outrage and anger” so to speak.
I personally view this as the most dangerous time for people who want to keep creeping gun control at bay.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Thomas Jefferson in response to Shays’ Rebellion
“But the true barriers of our liberty in this country are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed. Seventeen distinct States, amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration.”
-Thomas Jefferson
(Do states still have ANY powers that can’t be superceded by the federal government?)[/quote]
That is something I abhor; the way Federal gov’t is considered the be-all end-all of authority. At least if individual states are allowed more power, then varying states can mimic the successful ones’ style of governing, learn from each other, etc. When all states are more or less forced to govern the same, it doesn’t allow for ideas like that. [/quote]
States have more autonomy than most think. I think a lot of Federal ‘bullying’ is just tied to mandates for states to follow to receive Federal dollars.
More states need to tell the Feds to go F*)(( themselves more often and become less dependent on Fed dollars.
[/quote]
No doubt this is probably true, but was/should the federal government ever given/have the power to give the states federal money legitimately? Some might say that all federal money should go toward national defense, which would result in lower federal taxes being required. States could then make their taxes higher or lower in order to satisfy their citizens. Are the needs of a state better decided at the federal or state level?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Thomas Jefferson in response to Shays’ Rebellion
“But the true barriers of our liberty in this country are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed. Seventeen distinct States, amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration.”
-Thomas Jefferson
(Do states still have ANY powers that can’t be superceded by the federal government?)[/quote]
That is something I abhor; the way Federal gov’t is considered the be-all end-all of authority. At least if individual states are allowed more power, then varying states can mimic the successful ones’ style of governing, learn from each other, etc. When all states are more or less forced to govern the same, it doesn’t allow for ideas like that. [/quote]
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
States have more autonomy than most think. I think a lot of Federal ‘bullying’ is just tied to mandates for states to follow to receive Federal dollars.
More states need to tell the Feds to go F*)(( themselves more often and become less dependent on Fed dollars.
[/quote]
Good point. I suppose the argument could be made that the issue is states, just like individuals, ALLOWING themselves to be bought off. [/quote]
Exactly.
I claim ignorance on how things like federal marijuana laws are to be enforced, say like in Colorado. The state’s voters obviously want to smoke pot. There is Federal prohibition. The Feds can choose or choose not to enforce in that state. I don’t know what the ‘state penalty’ is/would be – financial or otherwise. The state can obviously choose not to cooperate with the Feds. Again, don’t know what the penalty would be. The Feds are obviously not going to prosecute the whole population of Colorado.
I imagine it’s the same dilemma with Fed operations enforcing gun laws in ‘gun friendly states’ (FBI, ATF, whoever).
[quote]NickViar wrote:
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
-Thomas Jefferson in response to Shays’ Rebellion
“But the true barriers of our liberty in this country are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed. Seventeen distinct States, amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration.”
-Thomas Jefferson
(Do states still have ANY powers that can’t be superceded by the federal government?)[/quote]
That is something I abhor; the way Federal gov’t is considered the be-all end-all of authority. At least if individual states are allowed more power, then varying states can mimic the successful ones’ style of governing, learn from each other, etc. When all states are more or less forced to govern the same, it doesn’t allow for ideas like that. [/quote]
States have more autonomy than most think. I think a lot of Federal ‘bullying’ is just tied to mandates for states to follow to receive Federal dollars.
More states need to tell the Feds to go F*)(( themselves more often and become less dependent on Fed dollars.
[/quote]
No doubt this is probably true, but was/should the federal government ever given/have the power to give the states federal money legitimately? Some might say that all federal money should go toward national defense, which would result in lower federal taxes being required. States could then make their taxes higher or lower in order to satisfy their citizens. Are the needs of a state better decided at the federal or state level?[/quote]
It seems like the question is “What will the Federal government do if doesn’t cooperate?” And by ‘cooperate’ I mean 1)pay taxes to the Feds 2) obey Federal law (at the State gov’t level) 3) cooperate with Federal govt enforcing Fed laws on citizens (pot/drug laws, gun laws, etc).
If a state decides not to accept one single Federal cent, and doesn’t send the Fed one cent of tax, then what is the US Government going to do?