Gun Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1081

“The president plans to reveal the details of that plan shortly before noon on Wednesday, joined by children who wrote him letters on the issue, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said. Carney stressed that Obama believes a “significant” part of the plan would include congressional action, but declined to specify what actions the president might take via executive order.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/obama-weighs-1-executive-actions-on-gun-control/#ixzz2I4aGK7VN

So Obama is going in using children both as a shield and as a weapon.

All parents should get your children to write to Obama to stop taking mommy and daddy’s money away as a tactic to stop him spending.

1082

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Liberals think about this. If Obama uses executive order to get rid of guns, it would be like Bush using executive order to get rid of Abortion. I have a feeling that 66% of the House and Senate would pass a bill that would over turn any executive order that Obama does on Gun Control, and if Reid wont allow it to be voted on then the Supreme Court will over turn it.[/quote]

Obama can not get rid of guns via executive order and he knows it

1083

I did hear one of the issues that label a rifle (assault) in NY is a pistol grip that is the problem with people making laws in RE: to something they know nothing about . Same could be said about pot :slight_smile:

1084

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

To continue where I left off on this post–

So, either you believe that a citizen should not face criminal charges after he, for example, shouts “fire” in a crowded room with the intention of inciting violence, thereby setting off a chain of events which killed an elderly woman

or

you believe that Constitutionally-protected rights can, in the name of public safety, be abridged in some of their manifestations.

Which, for the knives that might want to play dull, is not to say that you think it’s a good idea to further restrict arms ownership. Only that it could theoretically be Constitutional in exactly the same way that Brandenburg is.[/quote]

Push, as I understand it you’re traveling, but I’m interested in your response to this when you get the time.[/quote]

I’ve addressed it several times. I don’t know what more you want.

Move on to other court decisions that actually DO directly address gun control like Heller and Chicago.[/quote]

You have not addressed its substance.

The argument I make here–that the First Amendment’s prohibition of the criminalization of speech is directly analogous to the Second Amendment’s prohibition of infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms (in that each is what the Amendment explicitly prescribes); or, in other words, that freedom from persecution for speech is to the First Amendment as [b]gun ownership[/b] is to the Second Amendment–has been met with silence by you.

Two questions, your answers to which I’m honestly curious to see:

Should a hypothetical man face criminal charges for shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater where there was no fire, setting off a stampede during which one or more people were trampled to death?

And, if yes:

Do you or do you not agree, in light of the fact that the First Amendment prohibits the abridgment of speech without elaboration and you’ve just advocated the criminalization of a particular act of speech, that Constitutionally-protected rights can, in the name of public safety, be abridged in certain of their manifestations?[/quote]

The analogy and your synopsis are deeply flawed. Your point that freedom of speech has been ‘abridged,’ setting a precedent for the abridgement of other natural rights is nonsensical. The standard set by Brandenburg v. Ohio is that the speech must be likely to cause ‘imminent lawless action.’ That bears no relation to restrictions on the types of firearms a citizen can own. It would bear some similarity though, with someone known to be plotting a criminal conspiracy and intending to aquire weapons for that purpose. But there are already criminal conspiracy laws in place to deal with that.

1085

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Liberals think about this. If Obama uses executive order to get rid of guns, it would be like Bush using executive order to get rid of Abortion. I have a feeling that 66% of the House and Senate would pass a bill that would over turn any executive order that Obama does on Gun Control, and if Reid wont allow it to be voted on then the Supreme Court will over turn it.[/quote]

Obama can not get rid of guns via executive order and he knows it [/quote]

Even in Congress, Feinstein’s new gun ban proposes to confiscates 120 types of guns, while her 1994 version confiscated 18 types of guns.

It is a weak argument to assume that any gun ban would not be (or try to be) expanded by the government.

1086

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Liberals think about this. If Obama uses executive order to get rid of guns, it would be like Bush using executive order to get rid of Abortion. I have a feeling that 66% of the House and Senate would pass a bill that would over turn any executive order that Obama does on Gun Control, and if Reid wont allow it to be voted on then the Supreme Court will over turn it.[/quote]

Obama can not get rid of guns via executive order and he knows it [/quote]

Even in Congress, Feinstein’s new gun ban proposes to confiscates 120 types of guns, while her 1994 version confiscated 18 types of guns.

It is a weak argument to assume that any gun ban would not be (or try to be) expanded by the government. [/quote]

there will not be any confiscations in todays political climate the fight would be REAL and (PHYSICAL)

1087

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Liberals think about this. If Obama uses executive order to get rid of guns, it would be like Bush using executive order to get rid of Abortion. I have a feeling that 66% of the House and Senate would pass a bill that would over turn any executive order that Obama does on Gun Control, and if Reid wont allow it to be voted on then the Supreme Court will over turn it.[/quote]

Obama can not get rid of guns via executive order and he knows it [/quote]

Even in Congress, Feinstein’s new gun ban proposes to confiscates 120 types of guns, while her 1994 version confiscated 18 types of guns.

It is a weak argument to assume that any gun ban would not be (or try to be) expanded by the government. [/quote]

there will not be any confiscations in todays political climate the fight would be REAL and (PHYSICAL)[/quote]

Let’s see if the Great Oz is smart enough to see that.

1088

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The analogy and your synopsis are deeply flawed. Your point that freedom of speech has been ‘abridged,’ setting a precedent for the abridgement of other natural rights is nonsensical. The standard set by Brandenburg v. Ohio is that the speech must be likely to cause ‘imminent lawless action.’ That bears no relation to restrictions on the types of firearms a citizen can own. It would bear some similarity though, with someone known to be plotting a criminal conspiracy and intending to aquire weapons for that purpose. But there are already criminal conspiracy laws in place to deal with that.[/quote]

Very simply:

The first Amendment protects speech in general, without elaboration.

Speech that is likely to incite imminent, lawless action is a subset of speech in general.

Brandenburg upholds the legality of the criminalization of speech that is likely to incite imminent, lawless action, which is itself a subset of speech in general, which is protected without elaboration by the First Amendment.

I will put the questions to you as well, and am curious to see what your answers are:

Should a hypothetical man face criminal charges for shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater where there was no fire, setting off a stampede during which one or more people were trampled to death?

And, if yes:

Do you or do you not agree, in light of the fact that the First Amendment prohibits the abridgment of speech without elaboration and you’ve just advocated the criminalization of a particular act of speech, that Constitutionally-protected rights can, in the name of public safety, be abridged in certain of their manifestations?

1089

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I think this President is handing the Senate over to Republicans in 2014. He tried this strong-arm bullshit with healthcare, to get served up a huge loss in 2010.[/quote]

This occurred to me as well. Maybe he’s learned nothing from the last four years after all.

1090

I was waiting for this just after the election. I knew it was coming. They were just waiting for the next event.

Executive Orders will be tried, and they WILL push it through, but hopefully our checks and balances will stop them.

I was lucky enough to pick up my AR before the incident. By then every one of the AR’s were gone. Ammo too.

Cuomo in NY was able to limit magaziness to 7 or less, effectively banning most all semi auto rifles and handguns.

I’m waiting for this California Supermajority to act next. It’s going to be ridiculous.

1091

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Very simply:

The first Amendment protects speech in general, without elaboration.

[/quote]

It doesn’t necessarily follow from that, that all speech in all circumstances was intended to be protected. The example of someone yelling fire in a theatre describes a reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment, not an abridgement of intended rights.

Yes

[quote]

And, if yes:

Do you or do you not agree, in light of the fact that the First Amendment prohibits the abridgment of speech without elaboration and you’ve just advocated the criminalization of a particular act of speech, that Constitutionally-protected rights can, in the name of public safety, be abridged in certain of their manifestations?[/quote]

No. I would argue that yelling fire in a theatre was something the founders never intended to protect. The First Amendment was largely intended to free citizens from seditious libel charges when they wished to speak or write against public policy and officials.

1092

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I was waiting for this just after the election. I knew it was coming. They were just waiting for the next event.

Executive Orders will be tried, and they WILL push it through, but hopefully our checks and balances will stop them.

I was lucky enough to pick up my AR before the incident. By then every one of the AR’s were gone. Ammo too.

Cuomo in NY was able to limit magaziness to 7 or less, effectively banning most all semi auto rifles and handguns.

I’m waiting for this California Supermajority to act next. It’s going to be ridiculous. [/quote]

Looks like another person is moving to Texas soon.

“You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.” Davy Crockett

1093

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Liberals think about this. If Obama uses executive order to get rid of guns, it would be like Bush using executive order to get rid of Abortion. I have a feeling that 66% of the House and Senate would pass a bill that would over turn any executive order that Obama does on Gun Control, and if Reid wont allow it to be voted on then the Supreme Court will over turn it.[/quote]

Obama can not get rid of guns via executive order and he knows it [/quote]

Even in Congress, Feinstein’s new gun ban proposes to confiscates 120 types of guns, while her 1994 version confiscated 18 types of guns.

It is a weak argument to assume that any gun ban would not be (or try to be) expanded by the government. [/quote]

there will not be any confiscations in todays political climate the fight would be REAL and (PHYSICAL)[/quote]

Let’s see if the Great Oz is smart enough to see that.
[/quote]

Or the Great Oz come out from behind the curtain and show his true beliefs without spin.

1094

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

No. I would argue that yelling fire in a theatre was something the founders never intended to protect. The First Amendment was largely intended to free citizens from seditious libel charges when they wished to speak or write against public policy and officials.[/quote]

The text of the First Amendment protects speech without elaboration. There is no passage in the entire body of the founders’ writings that gives any indication as to what a single one of them thought about speech likely to cause imminent lawless action, as far as I’m aware. I am certain that they themselves–good 'ole Sam Adams, for example–said things likely to incite imminent lawless action from time to time.

Speech shall not be abridged.
Criminalization is abridgment.
“Fire” is speech.
Brandenburg criminalizes “fire.”
Therefore, Brandenburg abridges speech.

Again–if you believe our hypothetical man should face criminal charges, then you [i]must[/i] believe that a right protected without boundary or elaboration by the text of the Constitution can legally be abridged to at least some degree in the name of public safety.

1095

Can somebody please tell smh he won so that he can stop cluttering this thread with his obsessive debate gaming.

1096

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Can somebody please tell smh he won so that he can stop cluttering this thread with his obsessive debate gaming.

[/quote]

This is called discussion. It’s the point of this thread. Have you anything to say about the particulars of my argument?

Or would you rather I copy and paste a bunch of platitudinous quotes I found somewhere on the internet? I’ll start looking through Red Dawn’s IMDB page for good ones.

1097

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Speech shall not be abridged.
Criminalization is abridgment.
“Fire” is speech.
Brandenburg criminalizes “fire.”
Therefore, Brandenburg abridges speech.
[/quote]

“Fire” is only abridged when criminal conspiracy/negligence are involved. It’s only when criminal intent is formed or criminal negligence demonstrated that the limits of free speech are reached. Presumably the founders didn’t feel the need to define these boundaries as they considered it common sense.

Again - I don’t see it as an abridgement of intended free speech. I don’t believe it was ever intended that speech inciting crime should be protected.

1098

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Speech shall not be abridged.
Criminalization is abridgment.
“Fire” is speech.
Brandenburg criminalizes “fire.”
Therefore, Brandenburg abridges speech.
[/quote]

“Fire” is only abridged when criminal conspiracy/negligence are involved. It’s only when criminal intent is formed or criminal negligence demonstrated that the limits of free speech are reached. Presumably the founders didn’t feel the need to define these boundaries as they considered it common sense.
[/quote]

Whatever their motivation (As I said, some of the founders might not have been as opposed to speech likely to incite imminent lawless action as we are today), we agree on this: the founders didn’t define the boundaries. That leaves it to their progeny to do so (after all, that is what a law against speech likely to incite imminent lawless action is).

As we do define those boundaries, we cannot be so rigid as to consider a phrase like “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” so literally absolute as to render every word spoken under every conceivable circumstance a Constitutionally-protected, unassailable act.

I say it is the same with weapons. We cannot be so rigid as to consider a phrase like “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” so literally absolute as to render every extant and conceivable weapon available for public purchase and ownership. This is exactly why I’m perfectly comfortable with the legality of the fact that, despite their ability to be borne by a single man or woman, shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles are not legally available to people who may or may not be loitering near JFK International when I’m getting ready to travel.

So, in my view, an “assault weapons” ban may be wise or unwise and it may or may not save lives, but it is not necessarily unconstitutional.

1099

I don’t think Obama would come right out and try to outlaw firearms, that’s something done over a period of time and is chipped away at. I really can’t see him trying to push anything too restrictive through, not when Fast and Furious can be brought up. That could shift support pretty quickly when the average person hears “If you want strict gun control why did you force firearm dealers to sell weapons to criminal organizations?”, then you really are only left with your loyal supporters that side with Democrats no matter what. Realistically, I think mag capacity is the biggest issue. It’s an easy target, it’ll be easier to reach a deal on than banning firearms that generate a lot of revenue for gun manufacturers and it’s been getting negative attention for awhile now.

1100

[quote]b89 wrote:
I don’t think Obama would come right out and try to outlaw firearms, that’s something done over a period of time and is chipped away at. I really can’t see him trying to push anything too restrictive through, not when Fast and Furious can be brought up. That could shift support pretty quickly when the average person hears “If you want strict gun control why did you force firearm dealers to sell weapons to criminal organizations?”, then you really are only left with your loyal supporters that side with Democrats no matter what. Realistically, I think mag capacity is the biggest issue. It’s an easy target, it’ll be easier to reach a deal on than banning firearms that generate a lot of revenue for gun manufacturers and it’s been getting negative attention for awhile now. [/quote]

I agree about magazine capacity , I also think the cat is out of the bag. There are a lot a 30 to 50 round clips out there .