Gun Control

Let me put it this way…when someone calls you asking about a previous employee of yours, and is considering hiring this person based on your recommendation, you can be charged with slander if you directly say anything “bad” about them. Aka “(s)he was lazy, had bad work ethic, wasn’t a team player, etc”.

That isn’t inciting illegal activity, violence, or anything like that. It’s a previous employer giving their opinion of a person to a potential employer. Do you believe that should be “slander” and not allowed?

Taking away guns : 2A infringement to bear arms :: cutting out tongues : 1A abridgement of free speech

Abridgement, like infringement, does not mean punishment. You can be punished for misuse of any right, but you cannot be prevented from exercising that right.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Let me put it this way…when someone calls you asking about a previous employee of yours, and is considering hiring this person based on your recommendation, you can be charged with slander if you directly say anything “bad” about them. Aka “(s)he was lazy, had bad work ethic, wasn’t a team player, etc”.

That isn’t inciting illegal activity, violence, or anything like that. It’s a previous employer giving their opinion of a person to a potential employer. Do you believe that should be “slander” and not allowed?[/quote]

It’s only slander if it’s a lie. That being said, the most professional manner in which to give a bad reference is to say “no comment”.

The definition of libel also requires that the printed statement be false and defamatory.

You cannot be restrained from, or punished for, telling the truth.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Taking away guns : 2A infringement to bear arms :: cutting out tongues : 1A abridgement of free speech

Abridgement, like infringement, does not mean punishment. You can be punished for misuse of any right, but you cannot be prevented from exercising that right.[/quote]

You honestly believe the first Amendment was written to keep the gov’t from gagging people/cutting out their tongues?

So you’re ok with censorship, as long as it is qualified as “reasonable”? Do you believe people should be getting fined for cussing?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Let me put it this way…when someone calls you asking about a previous employee of yours, and is considering hiring this person based on your recommendation, you can be charged with slander if you directly say anything “bad” about them. Aka “(s)he was lazy, had bad work ethic, wasn’t a team player, etc”.

That isn’t inciting illegal activity, violence, or anything like that. It’s a previous employer giving their opinion of a person to a potential employer. Do you believe that should be “slander” and not allowed?[/quote]

It’s only slander if it’s a lie. That being said, the most professional manner in which to give a bad reference is to say “no comment”.

The definition of libel also requires that the printed statement be false and defamatory.

You cannot be restrained from, or punished for, telling the truth.[/quote]

Soooo you believe that lying, period, should be punishable by law?

I understand how the law works on this matter. What I’m getting at is, is it right?

I only meant that they are both the most extreme means of each.

No, I don’t agree with fining people for cussing. Punishment for libel, slander, or inciting violence, yes.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Let me put it this way…when someone calls you asking about a previous employee of yours, and is considering hiring this person based on your recommendation, you can be charged with slander if you directly say anything “bad” about them. Aka “(s)he was lazy, had bad work ethic, wasn’t a team player, etc”.

That isn’t inciting illegal activity, violence, or anything like that. It’s a previous employer giving their opinion of a person to a potential employer. Do you believe that should be “slander” and not allowed?[/quote]

It’s only slander if it’s a lie. That being said, the most professional manner in which to give a bad reference is to say “no comment”.

The definition of libel also requires that the printed statement be false and defamatory.

You cannot be restrained from, or punished for, telling the truth.[/quote]

Soooo you believe that lying, period, should be punishable by law?

I understand how the law works on this matter. What I’m getting at is, is it right?[/quote]
Is it right to be punished for damaging someone’s reputation or causing them harm by lying about them? Of course! But then, that is not abridgement of freedom of speech.

Libel and slander both require the statements to be false, defamatory and damaging. Not just any lie qualifies.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
What would analog BB be?

It would be something like: [The name of some hypothetical gun control legislation] allows the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear [certain] arms.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t.

The analog would be such and such legislation disallows the use of a gun to commit murder, rob a convenience store, point at a president, threaten a crowd in a movie theater, etc.[/quote]

I can assure you that the analogy as I’ve framed it is perfectly valid insomuch as an analogy can be said to be valid. The analog you described here does not fit the frame I built, not at all.

Of course, it can be framed in other ways. I said as much and provided a specific example (car is to road as boat is to sea) a few pages back.

Where does that leave us.

Right back at the beginning, which is where we’ll be for the rest of time.

By the way, and this is not necessarily or only addressed to you, this thread would be far less cluttered if the bumper-sticker platitudes were simply trimmed away.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

By the way, and this is not necessarily or only addressed to you, this thread would be far less cluttered if the bumper-sticker platitudes were simply trimmed away.[/quote]

Seconded.

I can’t believe I have to explain this, but here:

Free speech is to the First Amendment as gun OWNERSHIP is to the Second Amendment.

Now–just like the distributive property in algebra–we add and disseminate an abridgment to the equation.

An abridgment of free speech does to the First Amendment what an abridgment of gun OWNERSHIP does to the Second Amendment.

Brandenburg is an abridgment of free speech.

The rest follows from there.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”

Tench Coxe, 1788.

“Every other terrible implement of the soldier”


England’s Crime Rate Nearly Four Times Higher than United States

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/englands-crime-rate-nearly-four-times-higher-than-united-states/

Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are Banned

Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas gave us an anti-gun lecture during a Sunday Night Football game, we’ve heard a lot from progressives like Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and anti-gun advocacy groups about how countries in Europe with strict gun control laws don’t have problems with gun crime. We’ve also heard the reason the United States has a gun crime problem is because we allow citizens to own handguns however, the numbers on violent crime committed using a gun tell a different story.

Data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.

The Governments latest crime figures were condemned as truly terrible by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offenses, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%.

At least some in the UK are talking about �¢??attacking crime at its roots�¢?? by focusing on criminals, after all, guns are already banned so they can�¢??t blame crime on guns shooting themselves. Meanwhile in the United States, as more and more people own guns, the rate of violent crime has gone down.

Violent crime in the United States fell for the fifth consecutive year in 2011 with murder, rape and robbery all going down, although crime remains a serious problem in many urban areas, the FBI said on Monday.

The report of all crimes reported to police nationwide showed slightly more than 1.2 million violent incidents nationwide, while property crimes hit a nine-year low.

Compared with 2010, the new figures show violent crime down 3.8 percent overall. Property crime was down 0.5 percent.

Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7 percent, robberies dropped 4 percent, aggravated assaults declined 3.9 percent, and forcible rapes were down 2.5 percent.

On top of these figures, the notoriously violent city of Washington D.C. just saw its murder rate fall below triple digits for the first time since 1963 and just four years after the Supreme Court overturned the city’s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The District is poised to finish the year with fewer than 100 murders for the first time since 1963, and neighboring Prince Georges County likely will post its lowest homicide total in 25 years.

The murder capital of the United States two decades ago, the District has had 79 murders so far this year, according to police records. The annual number has been declining steadily since 2008 and is a far cry from the five years during the late-1980s and early-1990s crack epidemic, when the number of homicides never dropped below 400.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Robbery-victim-wants-to-thank-Good-Samaritans-who-came-to-his-rescue--186572461.html

Lol @ ‘I don’t believe in guns, but thank God for those two angels who had them’

I don’t agree with initiating a firefight in a neighborhood, but I also don’t have all the facts.

It is, however, a perfect example of the anti-gun mindset. People who “don’t believe in guns” like to say that cops will protect them just fine. But the cops are going to protect them with guns, right? So they really do believe in guns, they just believe someone else should take the risk of using it for them.

And I bet there are people who are so delusional that they could experience something like this and then still vote to ban guns for law-abiding citizens.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

If this same scenario were to play out in Alabama, and Col. JP, now a commander of the federalized unorganized militia, were ordered to detain, capture, and if necessary eliminate them, would he?[/quote]
Yes, he would. Conspiracy to murder is illegal. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a right or duty of the militia.

2A guarantees you the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. Not to conspire to murder.

Your ‘faulty argument’ argument is faulty.[/quote]

Fair enough.

So it follows absolutely, that you, JP, must abjure and deny any argument the the Second Amendment was intended for citizens to arm themselves against the Federal Government, since that would inexorably involve conspiracy and a commitment to extrajudicial murder or mayhem.

I accept this concession.

Concession? What concession?

Conspiracy to murder is not part of the process of removing tyrants from office. You need to do some real learning from real historical sources.

Not being in agreement with assassinations is not a concession. It is an affirmation that every single person, regardless of their crimes, is entitled to due process of law. Even traitorous tyrants.

Arguing with you liberals really is like playing chess with a pigeon; You squawk loudly about nothing, knock over all the pieces, take a big shit in the middle of the board, and then fly back to your flock, proclaiming your great victory.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

And I bet there are people who are so delusional that they [/quote]

…put words into your mouth.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Concession? What concession?

[/quote]

It was low blow on his part to put words into your mouth.

Don’t fall for it.