Do you feel the need to be upset when you encounter an armed camper in the woods?

[Klierslc]

Yeah, words never hurt anyone!

List of suicides which have been attributed to bullying.

Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater again?

Irrelevant. The suicides were not accomplished via words. That is like saying the stock market is infringing a right to life because stock brokers commit suicide.

As far as yelling fire in a theater, you bring up an excellent point--free speech is restricted if a the expected reaction would result the infringement of anyone else's right to life. That is why it doesn't enjoy protection under the first amendment. The concept of Liberty states that you are free to do as you please as long as what you do does not infringe on anybody else's unalienable rights. The first amendment protections on free speech are then, not universal. The 2nd amendment right "could" (maybe not should) be subject to some discussion about how its abuse may infringe on other, higher rights.

It is important to note that the first amendment/second amendment discussion is not an apples to apples comparison--there are certain inherent properties of speech, criminal actions, and liberty that do not apply equally between them.

 

[K2ZJ]

And it's not the gun that directly kills, it's the bullet. Just as it's not the word that directly kills. The root cause behind both is really the person. Owning a gun doesn't directly infringe upon anyone's rights either. It's against the law to kill someone no matter what method is used.

Thank you, I was about to type that too.

I would bet most instances of a gun being used to kill, there were words used first that led to the use of the gun.

 

[Klierslc]

I don't disagree with somenone needing to be trained properly, but this issue is fraught with all the same arguments against required voter ID. Who pays for the ID? Who pays for the red tape? What if you can't afford it? What if you can't travel to the training? What if you can't read/understand the forms to fill them out? Again, you can't advocate regulating one without being open to regulating all.

And it's not the gun that directly kills, it's the bullet. Just as it's not the word that directly kills. The root cause behind both is really the person. Owning a gun doesn't directly infringe upon anyone's rights either. It's against the law to kill someone no matter what method is used.

I don't disagree with requiring voter ID. I also depart from the majority here and advocate colonial style voter eligibility--property ownership was required to be a voter. That might not be realistic in today's world, but there are some merits. I owned a house in a college town and got very frustrated with the college kids coming to town, voting en mass and then moving on to the rest of their lives without having to deal with the consequences of their votes.

Back on track though, making firearm safety a required part of public education is easy enough. We already spend billions teaching kids about sex (which is not even close to the government's business) Why not teach them about exercising a constitutional right. Maybe the answer is education, not regulation/restriction.

 

[I Leak Oil]

Education....YES! Good luck with that though! My oldest is having to do more class room and driving hours to get his drivers license than I did to get my LTC.
Slightly off track.....when I go to vote, I walk in, find my district, tell them what road, tell them what house number. They ask my first name. That's it. There is nothing to stop someone from going in with my info and voting in my place. I find that more uncomfortable than encountering someone camping with a firearm.

 

[Klierslc]

Education....YES! Good luck with that though! My oldest is having to do more class room and driving hours to get his drivers license than I did to get my LTC.
Slightly off track.....when I go to vote, I walk in, find my district, tell them what road, tell them what house number. They ask my first name. That's it. There is nothing to stop someone from going in with my info and voting in my place. I find that more uncomfortable than encountering someone camping with a firearm.

Agree.

 

[AzTacoma]

In some instances yes, but I would hardly call freedom of the press an Unalienable right... The constitution is an attempt to ensure the higher unalienable rights are not infringed within a civil structure--that does not equate to all of the parts of the constitution being on the same level as the unalienable rights.

Freedom of press is simply a logical consequence and corollary of freedom of speech, and deserves its own mentioning for clarity. But I totally agree with your latter point about education... we need serious, authentic citizenship education and training in the US, with firearm education being a part of it.

 

[kanga1]

Do you get upset at the presence of guns in the woods?

Hi, in the 90's my Wife and I had to be in New York City for business in Feb, after the business was finished we decided to go to Las Vegas and then on to the Grand Canyon. When we returned to our hire car at one of the Canyon observation areas a family parked next to us. The guy who hopped out of the passenger side reached in to get his Cowboy hat something else I couldn't see, and a Revolver which was holstered straight away. Being from Australia and a Licenced Gun owner/shooter for over 35 years now, I was a bit surprised initially to see a handgun out in the open ( not at a Range ) in the hands of a member of the general public.
The family were nice enough and us tourists from another Country didn't feel scared or anything like it, we just thought it was an accepted thing there, just as we grab our wallet, phone and sunglasses when we get out of the car in Australia!
Believe it or not, coming into Kennedy airport at Immigration where US Citizens and Green card holders go one way and all other 'Aliens' get sent off another way for processing ( we had never been called Aliens before) had a far more negative effect on me particularly. But when in a foreign country, local laws and customs etc must be accepted by visitors IMHO. Anyhow that's my 2 cents worth in answer to the original question. Cheers, Kanga.

 

[SigSense]

Keep focused because I see people arguing as if guns make them American, or having marched in the Armed Forces makes them more American than others who in their eye is lesser. Those are different issues our society has today that dont help the argument about who should have guns and when they should carry.

Owning guns actually IS American (an American Right), and you were the one that posted that someone was "lucky enough to be born here and never had to do anything to be a US Citizen." This implies that there should be a litmus test for citizenship. There really is no argument about who should own guns, as it is codified in the Bill of Rights.

However, if I don't know how to safely operate a weapon or have a clue about when I should employ it, I could very easily end someone's life. That fact is the key difference.

And as you have seen in this thread, the exact SAME argument can be made for other rights. Let's change your sentence structure a bit and see if you agree....

*However, if I don't know how to learn about how government works, the issues affecting American society and the ramifications of my vote, I could very easily assist in the election of a devout Socialist and turn America into a bastion of mediocrity.

*However, if I don't know how to compose proper speech and not enflame people on social media, I could very easily start a protest somewhere that ignites the city into anarchy.

*However, if I don't know how to practice my religion peacefully, or have a clue about respecting other's beliefs, I could very easily end someone's life by practicing beheadings in the name of Allah.

*However, if I don't know any better, I could be jailed for 25 years for a crime that I didn't commit, because the courts advised me that I would get a trial in my lifetime----nothing about a speedy trial as referenced in the 6th Amendment.

Like I said, it isn't an easy nut to crack, but it does bear some discussion. By my estimation, irresponsible (but un-criminal) firearm use was pretty rare during the colonial period. If the founding fathers only knew how many idiots there would be....

Criminals keep using guns in crimes because law enforcement and the courts are not serious about enforcing the laws already on the books. The founding fathers knew nothing about the internet either----so should we make everyone get a thorough background check, pass a reading/writing test, and get a License-to-Internet (LTI) because there are so many idiots in America. How about we ban idiots? I mean, Gun Free Zones are quite effective. Let's make America an Idiot-Free Zone.

I don't disagree with somenone needing to be trained properly, but this issue is fraught with all the same arguments against required voter ID. Who pays for the ID? Who pays for the red tape? What if you can't afford it? What if you can't travel to the training? What if you can't read/understand the forms to fill them out? Again, you can't advocate regulating one without being open to regulating all.

This.

The 2nd amendment right "could" (maybe not should) be subject to some discussion about how its abuse may infringe on other, higher rights.

It is important to note that the first amendment/second amendment discussion is not an apples to apples comparison--there are certain inherent properties of speech, criminal actions, and liberty that do not apply equally between them.

Except that you refuse to acknowledge that the 2A contains a phrase negating your "could" discussion ---- Shall Not Be Infringed is a distinct part of the right. No other right denotes this. None. Zero.

Back on track though, making firearm safety a required part of public education is easy enough. We already spend billions teaching kids about sex (which is not even close to the government's business) Why not teach them about exercising a constitutional right. Maybe the answer is education, not regulation/restriction.

It is NOT the government's responsibility to teach children about weapons safety, sex, LGBTQRX studies, and other non-essentials. This is why our nation is rapidly becoming an Idiocracy. We no longer lead the world in youth intelligence. Why? We have departed from the basics. Additionally through Socialist inculcation a generation of weak young, harbored in their safe spaces, and scared to hear bad words is thriving.

 

[Dalko43]

As far as yelling fire in a theater, you bring up an excellent point--free speech is restricted if a the expected reaction would result the infringement of anyone else's right to life. That is why it doesn't enjoy protection under the first amendment. The concept of Liberty states that you are free to do as you please as long as what you do does not infringe on anybody else's unalienable rights. The first amendment protections on free speech are then, not universal. The 2nd amendment right "could" (maybe not should) be subject to some discussion about how its abuse may infringe on other, higher rights.

It is important to note that the first amendment/second amendment discussion is not an apples to apples comparison--there are certain inherent properties of speech, criminal actions, and liberty that do not apply equally between them.

The free speech, especially the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example, is often brought up to compare to the 2nd Amendment and why it would be okay to restrict it further. But This is not an apples to apples comparison, as you noted.

1) No one is ever preemptively gagged to prevent them from yelling "fire." They are punished after the fact if it is deemed they used their speech in a harmful or illegal manner, unlike many proposed and actual firearm regulations which do seek to preemptively disarm and/or restrict all citizens on certain features/weapons, regardless of whether their intent is criminal or not.

2) Yelling "fire" is not protected by the 1st Amendment because it is a call to action and it jeopardizes the welfare of other people (as you brought up). Simply owning a "military-style" (which is a fake label IMO) weapon or having a certain magazine capacity does not inherently endanger other people's welfare. If said weapons/devices were used to kill, injure or coerce other people, then yes it does, but there are already laws against such actions.

The writers of the Constitution erred on the side of individual freedom when they wrote the Constitution. They were all too aware of the potential dangers of giving too much authority to one, centralized government, and wanted a federalist republic where state and local communities and individuals themselves were able to think and decide for themselves what rights were relevant. The Constitution was written to limit the Federal government's authority, not enhance it; that's why certain politicians are activist groups are working hard to overturn the Heller interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And once that is done they set the stage to re-write or erase it all together from the Bill of Rights. It's a slippery slope some people are on; if you can edit or totally delete one individual right, you can do that for others as well.

 

[I Leak Oil]

Yes. We need to focus on the punishment for misuse as a deterrent instead of taking the easy way out with pre-punishment.

 

[Klierslc]

And as you have seen in this thread, the exact SAME argument can be made for other rights. Let's change your sentence structure a bit and see if you agree....

*However, if I don't know how to learn about how government works, the issues affecting American society and the ramifications of my vote, I could very easily assist in the election of a devout Socialist and turn America into a bastion of mediocrity.

*However, if I don't know how to compose proper speech and not enflame people on social media, I could very easily start a protest somewhere that ignites the city into anarchy.

*However, if I don't know how to practice my religion peacefully, or have a clue about respecting other's beliefs, I could very easily end someone's life by practicing beheadings in the name of Allah.

*However, if I don't know any better, I could be jailed for 25 years for a crime that I didn't commit, because the courts advised me that I would get a trial in my lifetime----nothing about a speedy trial as referenced in the 6th Amendment.



Criminals keep using guns in crimes because law enforcement and the courts are not serious about enforcing the laws already on the books. The founding fathers knew nothing about the internet either----so should we make everyone get a thorough background check, pass a reading/writing test, and get a License-to-Internet (LTI) because there are so many idiots in America. How about we ban idiots? I mean, Gun Free Zones are quite effective. Let's make America an Idiot-Free Zone.



This.



Except that you refuse to acknowledge that the 2A contains a phrase negating your "could" discussion ---- Shall Not Be Infringed is a distinct part of the right. No other right denotes this. None. Zero.



It is NOT the government's responsibility to teach children about weapons safety, sex, LGBTQRX studies, and other non-essentials. This is why our nation is rapidly becoming an Idiocracy. We no longer lead the world in youth intelligence. Why? We have departed from the basics. Additionally through Socialist inculcation a generation of weak young, harbored in their safe spaces, and scared to hear bad words is thriving.

So, what is your solution? You seem to be intent on telling everybody else that they are wrong but not offering anything constructive.
.
.
Your comparisons to other rights are not logically sound by the way--all of those consequences are second and third order effects.
.
.
Your ranting about the founding fathers and the internet is not helping your case or lending credibility to your arguments. The idiots point was tongue in cheek (since you didn't seem to notice)
.
.
I am not refusing anything in regards to what the second amendment says or does not say--it is right there in black and white for all to see. Do yourself a favor and think of a reason why the founding fathers might have included that phrase on that particular amendment. Context is important. The fact that a nation had recently been formed via an armed revolution of the people probably influenced their wording. The fact that the second amendment serves as insurance to protect all of the rest of our constitutional rights is not lost on me, but try to think outside of the box you have built around yourself. Also, discussion does not equal infringement. IF a protected right is infringing upon the very rights it was created to protect, discussion needs to happen.
.
.
While I agree that education in general is not the government's role, are you seriously saying that the government shouldn't teach about exercising constitutional rights? Pull your head from the sand sir.

 

[calicamper]

So, what is your solution? You seem to be intent on telling everybody else that they are wrong but not offering anything constructive.
.
.
Your comparisons to other rights are not logically sound by the way--all of those consequences are second and third order effects.
.
.
Your ranting about the founding fathers and the internet is not helping your case or lending credibility to your arguments. The idiots point was tongue in cheek (since you didn't seem to notice)
.
.
I am not refusing anything in regards to what the second amendment says or does not say--it is right there in black and white for all to see. Do yourself a favor and think of a reason why the founding fathers might have included that phrase on that particular amendment. Context is important. The fact that a nation had recently been formed via an armed revolution of the people probably influenced their wording. The fact that the second amendment serves as insurance to protect all of the rest of our constitutional rights is not lost on me, but try to think outside of the box you have built around yourself. Also, discussion does not equal infringement. IF a protected right is infringing upon the very rights it was created to protect, discussion needs to happen.
.
.
While I agree that education in general is not the government's role, are you seriously saying that the government shouldn't teach about exercising constitutional rights? Pull your head from the sand sir.

Hes clearly been reading the current how to be Republican hand book. LOL Grabs hat and exits Left. No solutions just noise and telling everyone around him they are wrong. Its the new Republican way you know.

 

[Klierslc]

The free speech, especially the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example, is often brought up to compare to the 2nd Amendment and why it would be okay to restrict it further. But This is not an apples to apples comparison, as you noted.

1) No one is ever preemptively gagged to prevent them from yelling "fire." They are punished after the fact if it is deemed they used their speech in a harmful or illegal manner, unlike many proposed and actual firearm regulations which do seek to preemptively disarm and/or restrict all citizens on certain features/weapons, regardless of whether their intent is criminal or not.

2) Yelling "fire" is not protected by the 1st Amendment because it is a call to action and it jeopardizes the welfare of other people (as you brought up). Simply owning a "military-style" (which is a fake label IMO) weapon or having a certain magazine capacity does not inherently endanger other people's welfare. If said weapons/devices were used to kill, injure or coerce other people, then yes it does, but there are already laws against such actions.

The writers of the Constitution erred on the side of individual freedom when they wrote the Constitution. They were all too aware of the potential dangers of giving too much authority to one, centralized government, and wanted a federalist republic where state and local communities and individuals themselves were able to think and decide for themselves what rights were relevant. The Constitution was written to limit the Federal government's authority, not enhance it; that's why certain politicians are activist groups are working hard to overturn the Heller interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And once that is done they set the stage to re-write or erase it all together from the Bill of Rights. It's a slippery slope some people are on; if you can edit or totally delete one individual right, you can do that for others as well.

Well stated! As I have said before, I am one of the staunchest 2nd amendment supporters out there--I am also a pragmatist. The uneducated masses have the power to change our rights--burying our heads in the sand and mumbling about how...arms....infringed....aliens...libertude....etc does not solve the problem. Instead of focusing our efforts on beating the "shall not be infringed" drum we need to focus on solving the problem--then there will be no reason to assault our rights.

The problem is three-fold as I see it.
.
.
1. Criminal gun violence--tough laws that are actually enforced for gun violence--I can easily make a machine gun and I want to make a machine gun. The ONLY reason that I don't have several is due to the NFA--10k and 10 years automatically with no questions asked....ouch. No thanks. As stated already in the thread--strictly enforce the laws we have upon those who break them, do not make more laws that only affect law abiding citizens.
.
.
2. Accidental/negligent discharge--there is no reason to not teach firearm safety in the public schools. This is not a 100% solution as not all kids go to public school, some parents might object and keep their kids out of that class, etc. However, an easy thing to do that WILL result in less people accidentally killed should be done.

3. Mass shootings--this is multifaceted; I'll restrict my comments to the juvenile shooters as criminal and terror based shootings occur worldwide and are not connected with our 2nd amendment rights. (yes I realize that shooting your classmates is against the law and therefore criminal....moving on). I think education is the key solution here. Today's teens are subject to immensely more social pressure than past generations. They are also not taught logic, critical thinking, and rhetoric in school. They are instead taught to follow their emotions, follow their heart, and express themselves however they want to--all very noble until their emotions and heart lead them to expressing themselves with violence.
.
I don't pretend to understand this fully, but as I see our younger Marines go through their decision making process, it boggles my mind--the fact that the brain doesn't fully develop till around 25 years old accounts for some of the shenanigans, but not nearly all of them. Older generations had the same tendencies for shenanigans at those ages but were taught to reason things through logically--kids these days do not have those tools. The ability to critically think about a situation, logically work out a solution and then articulate that to someone is a lost art. I include rhetoric in there because of the amount of times I hear "nobody understands me" from kids--if you were taught how to properly express your thoughts, maybe people would understand.
.
So, circling back around to the school shooters--the previously mentioned weapons safety classes could help, engaged parenting is critical, and giving kids the tools to deal with the stresses of the modern era is a step in the right direction.

 

[Dalko43]

Hes clearly been reading the current how to be Republican hand book. LOL Grabs hat and exits Left. No solutions just noise and telling everyone around him they are wrong. Its the new Republican way you know.

I'm pretty sure the mods don't want overt political name-calling going on.

You can disagree with someone without belittling their personal/political views.

 

[SigSense]

So, what is your solution? You seem to be intent on telling everybody else that they are wrong but not offering anything constructive.

The solution is to strictly follow the Constitution. Plain, simple, yet so hard to accomplish by modern revisionists. Everyone acts like there's a massive problem with guns in this nation----there is no such thing. If you listen to the lamestream media, then you likely think that gun crime is out of control. Do some research before propagating Liberal/Leftist talking points that seek to disarm you. Arm yourself with the facts, not hype.

Hes clearly been reading the current how to be Republican hand book. LOL Grabs hat and exits Left. No solutions just noise and telling everyone around him they are wrong. Its the new Republican way you know.

False. I merely state facts, which is (unfortunately) a predominant Republican perspective. Don't know what spectrum of politics you align with, but if you are a Democrat there have been studies that show reveal that party actually commits the majority of gun crimes in this nation. If you have the time, you can read about that here: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/01/guns_dont_kill_people_democrats_kill_people.html