Gov McAauliffe is a moron

[Timjoebillybob]

Whoa, this is a new one on me.

How in the Hell is Gun Control Racist?

I asked this of you before. If you answered sorry I missed it.
Do you support or oppose laws that require a govt. issued ID to vote? If you oppose them, why?

You can say the same for many of the Jim Crow laws. So racism permeates our history with regard to many things, many things. Now if you were to point out that the UBC where racist at this point in time that would be a different matter entirely.

If you answer my question above, I'll be glad to answer this one for you.

If it was determined that background checks could be justified or somehow deemed necessary with regards to getting a drivers license I wouldn't have any problem with that. That kind of thing doesn't worry me. We keep having these car killers anyway so we may very well be talking this real soon. But yeah, that really doesn't concern me.

We've been over this before. One is a specifically enumerated Constitutionally protected right. The other is not.

You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

I hate this "quote", mainly because it is a misquote that is done so often that people believe it is a real quote. The actual quote is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." which was penned by Justice Holmes in Schenck v US. The firearm analogy could be something like this "The most stringent protection of the right to keep and bear arms would not protect a man from shooting without cause in a theater and causing a panic."

I posted the above because you have lately shown some interest in learning. Below is my usual response to that misquote.

Oh really you can't?
[video=youtube;ouZ-0EXnbj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouZ-0EXnbj8[/video]

 

[Dddrees]

I asked this of you before. If you answered sorry I missed it.
Do you support or oppose laws that require a govt. issued ID to vote? If you oppose them, why?



If you answer my question above, I'll be glad to answer this one for you.



We've been over this before. One is a specifically enumerated Constitutionally protected right. The other is not.



I hate this "quote", mainly because it is a misquote that is done so often that people believe it is a real quote. The actual quote is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." which was penned by Justice Holmes in Schenck v US. The firearm analogy could be something like this "The most stringent protection of the right to keep and bear arms would not protect a man from shooting without cause in a theater and causing a panic."

I posted the above because you have lately shown some interest in learning. Below is my usual response to that misquote.

Oh really you can't?
[video=youtube;ouZ-0EXnbj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouZ-0EXnbj8[/video]

No I don't specifically. I have heard this would make it dificult for some citizens, so let's try to make it easier for them to get it. But no I don't.


Ok so your saying restricting the ability of one from inciting a riot wouldn't be a specifically enumerated right? How about the fact that we limit or don't allow a person to purchase or own a GAU-19. Now that seems to be a restriction. Now that kind of s*** don't it. I mean I could have some serious fun right there. Why is it the government can't see they are placing a restriction on my rights?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No I don't specifically. I have heard this would make it dificult for some citizens, so let's try to make it easier for them to get it. But no I don't.

Ok so your saying restricting the ability of one from inciting a riot wouldn't be a specifically enumerated right? How about the fact that we limit or don't allow a person to purchase or own a GAU-19. Now that seems to be a restriction. Now that kind of s*** don't it. I mean I could have some serious fun right there. Why is it the government can't see they are placing a restriction on my rights?

Can you be a bit more specific? Specifically what citizens? Could you be talking about minorities perchance?

Slight problem with your analogy, I'm allowed to learn and use all the words I would need to incite a riot. Heck I can even use the same words in the same order without breaking the law. A lot depends on intent. Using your incite a riot analogy, I should be able to own and use a GAU-!9, just not in an illegal manner. Such as shooting up my neighbors home because their band is playing to late when I have to get up in the morning.

 

[Dddrees]

Can you be a bit more specific? Specifically what citizens? Could you be talking about minorities perchance?

Slight problem with your analogy, I'm allowed to learn and use all the words I would need to incite a riot. Heck I can even use the same words in the same order without breaking the law. A lot depends on intent. Using your incite a riot analogy, I should be able to own and use a GAU-!9, just not in an illegal manner. Such as shooting up my neighbors home because their band is playing to late when I have to get up in the morning.

Yes minorities. Seems like the arguement is always there is undue burden placed on minorities. Anyway I'm not against requiring identification. Just make it reasonable as far as how it's carried out. Identification in my opinion is a good thing.

Well it still seems we're limiting free speech regardless aren't we? But you can't own a GAU-19 can you? If you can let me know but the way I understand it there are certain guns the government doesn't allow us to own.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes minorities. Seems like the arguement is always there is undue burden placed on minorities. Anyway I'm not against requiring identification. Just make it reasonable as far as how it's carried out. Identification in my opinion is a good thing.

Well it still seems we're limiting free speech regardless aren't we? But you can't own a GAU-19 can you? If you can let me know but the way I understand it there are certain guns the government doesn't allow us to own.

If you read the text of the Second Amendment, what is written there that would grant the government any right to prohibit you from possessing any arm? Even if we focus on the "militia" aspect of it, if able bodied men (and now women) are the militia, shouldn't we be able to own any arm a member of the military might expect to use in the nation's defense?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The grey is only there if you want it to be there. The text, though written in a slightly different style of English and uses a term that now has a slightly different meaning, is quite clear.

 

[Dddrees]

If you read the text of the Second Amendment, what is written there that would grant the government any right to prohibit you from possessing any arm? Even if we focus on the "militia" aspect of it, if able bodied men (and now women) are the militia, shouldn't we be able to own any arm a member of the military might expect to use in the nation's defense?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The grey is only there if you want it to be there. The text, though written in a slightly different style of English and uses a term that now has a slightly different meaning, is quite clear.

But there's no limits in the Constitution on free speech either. So maybe I'm still missing this point or not getting what is being said here.

 

[ATM]

But there's no limits in the Constitution on free speech either. So maybe I'm still missing this point or not getting what is being said here.

The limit is upon government. Don't try to interpret a limit upon citizens into it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But there's no limits in the Constitution on free speech either. So maybe I'm still missing this point or not getting what is being said here.

You are missing the point.

There is no limit to what you can say in the privacy of your own home, car, business, out on the street, or to a friend. You can say anything you like. You can publish books and youtube videos if you like. That is your freedom. But what you cannot do is do harm with your speech...eg. I cannot intimidate people or threaten them.

Guns are treated differently. Guns are just inanimate objects. But our culture has come to view guns as the cause of various problems and if they were controlled (a euphemism for eliminated), these problems would simply go away. If we were to treat the keeping and bearing of arms like speech, then I could own any any gun I could afford. I could carry it in my home, car, business, out on the street or among friends. I could carry anything I like. But I cannot do harm with them...I cannot use them to intimidate people, threaten people, or otherwise harm them.

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.

 

[Dddrees]

You are missing the point.

There is no limit to what you can say in the privacy of your own home, car, business, out on the street, or to a friend. You can say anything you like. You can publish books and youtube videos if you like. That is your freedom. But what you cannot do is do harm with your speech...eg. I cannot intimidate people or threaten them.

Guns are treated differently. Guns are just inanimate objects. But our culture has come to view guns as the cause of various problems and if they were controlled (a euphemism for eliminated), these problems would simply go away. If we were to treat the keeping and bearing of arms like speech, then I could own any any gun I could afford. I could carry it in my home, car, business, out on the street or among friends. I could carry anything I like. But I cannot do harm with them...I cannot use them to intimidate people, threaten people, or otherwise harm them.

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.

You just did. This was the perfect explanation for me. The others were more like bits and pieces. They may have tried but this one makes it perfectly clear.

However I am still at the sticking point that we or our government has already decided at the Supreme Court level that reasonable limitations when it comes to guns is legal.

 

[ATM]

...However I am still at the sticking point that we or our government has already decided at the Supreme Court level that reasonable limitations when it comes to guns is legal.

Our government has and always will decide that it can be and do more than was ever authorized or delegated for it.

Left to limit itself, no limits will endure.

 

[2A_Tom]

But there's no limits in the Constitution on free speech either. So maybe I'm still missing this point or not getting what is being said here.

The same exact limits already exist on all rights equally.

You can exercise all rights as long as you do not violate another's. When you violate another's right, you have exceded your rights. A couple of examples, by no means exhaustive.

• Speech press. Slander, libel, incitement, creating panic and threatening excede your wight.
• Bear arms. Murder, aggravated battery, threatening or robbery excede your right.
• Search and seziure. Purgered affidavit, lack of probable cause violate your right.

 

[Dddrees]

Our government has and always will decide that it can be and do more than was ever authorized or delegated for it.

Left to limit itself, no limits will endure.

That arguement here doesn't work with me. By that I mean I am for things that make sense to me. To me it makes sense that individuals really don't need to own a GAU-19 no matter how much fun it might be. Frankly I think more harm than good could ever come out of that.

 

[Dddrees]

The same exact limits already exist on all rights equally.

You can exercise all rights as long as you do not violate another's. When you violate another's right, you have exceded your rights. A couple of examples, by no means exhaustive.

• Speech press. Slander, libel, incitement, creating panic and threatening excede your wight.
• Bear arms. Murder, aggravated battery, threatening or robbery excede your right.
• Search and seziure. Purgered affidavit, lack of probable cause violate your right.

Good point but see my comment above.

 

[2A_Tom]

You just did. This was the perfect explanation for me. The others were more like bits and pieces. They may have tried but this one makes it perfectly clear.

However I am still at the sticking point that we or our government has already decided at the Supreme Court level that reasonable limitations when it comes to guns is legal.

Dread Scott is not a man, but property.

 

[ATM]

That arguement here doesn't work with me. By that I mean I am for things that make sense to me. To me it makes sense that individuals really don't need to own a GAU-19 no matter how much fun it might be. Frankly I think more harm than good could ever come out of that.

If the constitution doesn't make sense to you, just ignore it like our government does and do whatever you want.

No limits except what makes sense to you.

Good argument, until you don't like Trump and want him limited, right?

 

[2A_Tom]

That arguement here doesn't work with me. By that I mean I am for things that make sense to me. To me it makes sense that individuals really don't need to own a GAU-19 no matter how much fun it might be. Frankly I think more harm than good could ever come out of that.

Pure opinion, you do not allow our opinions without data.

ETA: It is not a bill of needs.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

That arguement here doesn't work with me. By that I mean I am for things that make sense to me. To me it makes sense that individuals really don't need to own a GAU-19 no matter how much fun it might be. Frankly I think more harm than good could ever come out of that.

Wow. The ramifications of this type of thinking are huge.

 

[Dddrees]

Dread Scott is not a man, but property.

Ah so you trying to make the point that because that decision was wrong the decision that reasonable limitations on gun ownership is wrong. Ok, get it.

But, sorry I'm just not for everybody having the right to own a GAU-19. I just don't see that being reasonable.

 

[printcraft]

Ah so you trying to make the point that because that decision was wrong the decision that reasonable limitations on gun ownership is wrong. Ok, get it.

But, sorry I'm just not for everybody having the right to own a GAU-19. I just don't see that being reasonable.

Who decides what is reasonable?

I think it's reasonable that you DD should be limited to two posts per day, per thread.

 

[Dddrees]

^And this is how we're going to end the discussion here. Really?