Response from Joe Donnelly

[Hammerhead]

You mean having some reasonable restrictions on the amendments? Yes, it's completely logical to have some restrictions. Just like you can't scream "there's a bomb!" on a plane (thus implying some restrictions on the first amendment), there's going to be some restrictions on the right to bear arms. Are there too many? Yes there are, but it's not unreasonable to have some. And when I say some, I mean just some.

My answer to that is extremely simple. Every right is limited to the point that you overstep on another's rights. Up to that point, no restrictions

Yes, you can scream "there's a bomb!" on a plane.

Yes, you can scream "there's a bomb" anywhere. You just have to be willing to deal with the consequences. Just like the argument that people shouldn't be able to buy nuclear/biological/chemical weapons is moot. Buying, owning, keeping, displaying, handling, whatever of any object is not the problem. It is only when the use of such object causes harm, or infringes on another's rights then does it become a problem. However, the problem lies not with the object for it does not display intent. The problem lies with it's wielder and the consequenses should rest squarely on their shoulders. Unfortunately there are some in society that wish to squarely place blame on objects. They falsely believe that if there were no objects, there would not be problems. This makes humans infallible in their eyes. If it weren't for the object, the human wouldn't have reacted and been a flawed human.

We do not blame the car for the drunk driver.

Since the beginning of time -rocks, pointy sticks, ropes, sharpened metal, and for several hundred years firearms- man has been the problem. It's just easier to place blame on an object because it can't defend itself.

Cain was blamed and punished for Abel's death, not the rock.

 

[cce1302]

Yes, you can scream "there's a bomb" anywhere. You just have to be willing to deal with the consequences. Just like the argument that people shouldn't be able to buy nuclear/biological/chemical weapons is moot. Buying, owning, keeping, displaying, handling, whatever of any object is not the problem. It is only when the use of such object causes harm, or infringes on another's rights then does it become a problem. However, the problem lies not with the object for it does not display intent. The problem lies with it's wielder and the consequenses should rest squarely on their shoulders. Unfortunately there are some in society that wish to squarely place blame on objects. They falsely believe that if there were no objects, there would not be problems. This makes humans infallible in their eyes. If it weren't for the object, the human wouldn't have reacted and been a flawed human.

We do not blame the car for the drunk driver.

Since the beginning of time -rocks, pointy sticks, ropes, sharpened metal, and for several hundred years firearms- man has been the problem. It's just easier to place blame on an object because it can't defend itself.

Cain was blamed and punished for Abel's death, not the rock.

You can, and, if there actually is a bomb, you probably should tell an adult.

Furthermore, they don't take away your physical ability to yell "there's a bomb" every time you go into a place that would be thrown into pandemonium if you did yell it.

 

[LP1]

Yes, you can scream "there's a bomb!" on a plane.

And unless you are warning people of a real (or apparently real) danger, you will face some unpleasant consequences for doing so. If you falsely yell "bomb" on a plane, your life will suck for quite awhile. If you disagree, feel free to try it.

 

[LP1]

joe is an *********

1. No, he is a thoughtful, moderate politician.
2. If he is whatever all those asterisks mean, how many asterisks would be needed to describe the nutjob he defeated?

 

[halfmileharry]

I've gotten 3 of the SAME letter from Donnely. I send the letters in through the GOA regularly and it's always the same letter response. Coats does the same thing except he's going to consider all options.
I didn't expect a hand written reply from Joe but I sure didn't expect the same dribble to be sent over and over.

 

[88GT]

1. No, he is a thoughtful, moderate politician.
2. If he is whatever all those asterisks mean, how many asterisks would be needed to describe the nutjob he defeated?

Not sure if serious.

 

[cce1302]

And unless you are warning people of a real (or apparently real) danger, you will face some unpleasant consequences for doing so. If you falsely yell "bomb" on a plane, your life will suck for quite awhile. If you disagree, feel free to try it.

Please read this article before continuing to use that argument.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote - Trevor Timm - The Atlantic

 

[EdC]

Please read this article before continuing to use that argument.

That was an informative article and thanks for the link. However, I think the author overstates his position. Despite the background of the cases, and the subsequent reversals or pulling back, the dictum, in Holme's own words, remains relevant and true:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Admittedly, it's not the same as "You can't [falsely] should "fire" in a crowded theater." To prohibit the speech (or to be barred from using the 1A as defense from the consequences), the speech has to be calculated to incite or cause imminent harm.

I guess a better way to put it is: "A person's rights end where another's nose begins"

The corollary to that rule is: "Keep your nose out of other people's business."

I have to say, it seems that other person's noses are getting longer and longer these days.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Why did he say the mental health needs more conversation and then make it sound like the biggest problem was the men an women of the military and veterans?

 

[LP1]

Not sure if serious.

Absolutely. Anyone who seriously thinks that Mourdock would be a good senator is a prime example of a "low information voter".

 

[88GT]

Absolutely. Anyone who seriously thinks that Mourdock would be a good senator is a prime example of a "low information voter".

Why would he be a bad senator? I don't know what he would have been like, but I'm hardly a low-information voter.

Ironically enough, I was questioning your characterization of Donnelly. He's a snake.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

I got the same e-mail response a few times from a GOA "e-mail your representatives" website. It makes you wonder about his "A" rating from NRA-PVF.

 

[cce1302]

Admittedly, it's not the same as "You can't [falsely] should "fire" in a crowded theater." To prohibit the speech (or to be barred from using the 1A as defense from the consequences), the speech has to be calculated to incite or cause imminent harm.

and that is the key. Keeping and bearing arms is not by any stretch calculated to incite or cause imminent harm.

The only restrictions on firearms that I would accept would be those that restrict people from using firearms to incite or cause imminent harm, i.e. armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, threatening, etc.

Incidentally, I support restrictions on that sort of behavior even when firearms are not involved.

 

[Bennettjh]

Oh, there's a "however" after that statement? How surprising.

"However" gives the lie to the statement that you are a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment". It makes you a wishy-washy supporter at best. Here's a tip, Joe. If you have to remind me that you're a "strong supporter of the Second Amendment", then you're not one.

The real truth comes after the "but"/ "however"

Exactly.

 

[Redhorse]

1. No, he is a thoughtful, moderate politician.
2. If he is whatever all those asterisks mean, how many asterisks would be needed to describe the nutjob he defeated?

To be honest, I gained more respect for him now that I know he supports the right to carry. Murdock sort of shot himself in the foot in his last debate.

 

[88GT]

To be honest, I gained more respect for him now that I know he supports the right to carry.

Donnelly? If there's a "but" after any lip service to gun owners, there's a butt doing the talking.

 

[Redhorse]

Donnelly? If there's a "but" after any lip service to gun owners, there's a butt doing the talking.

I refer to his stance on the right to carry, not his entire stance on gun rights.

 

[dcr465]

I miss Dick Lugar!!!!!

 

[printcraft]

I miss Dick Lugar!!!!!

LOL

 

[88GT]

I refer to his stance on the right to carry, not his entire stance on gun rights.

Like there's a difference or a separation.