Todays lesson is on how authoritarianism works. If you have limitation A, an authoritarian can use that one limitation to justify all limitations. Let's take some examples: Often when debating the justifications of the gun regulations they want, gun control people will point out that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute just like the first is not absolute in that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. What they mean is, since the 1st has a restriction, the 2nd can as well. However, if they were being honest when using this tactic (which they aren't and we will get to that), they would recognize that the 2nd already has it's equivalent of not yelling "Fire", which is age restrictions, carry restrictions, type restrictions, and background checks from gun dealers. If they were being honest, they would say what they mean is that both Amendments, in all fairness, should have the same amount of restrictions; and since the 2nd has way more restrictions than the 1st, you can't use the 1st to justify more restrictions on the 2nd (if anything, you would need to add more to the 1st or take away from the 2nd to even it out). However, they are not being honest when they use this argument. What they are saying is "because the 2nd has a few regulations deemed constitutional, that justifies ALL regulations one can dream up". If A, then B - Z (and beyond) is ok. That's what they mean. Or to put it another way, because the right to bear arms can be regulated in some ways, it can be regulated in any way, shape, or form and you have no right to bear arms. You see this type of crap all the time over there at DemocraticUnderground. Just last night someone made a thread over there bragging how they blocked FOX news on their employer's tv at work. While they got most of them over there to agree with their horrid actions, a few wise ones spoke up about how that is complete crap and infringes on the 1st Amendment. The answer to that? The authoritarian answer of "you can't yell Fire", so you can't have hate speech (claiming FOX is hate speech, so it is ok). This is what authoritarians do. They expand definitions and pretend everything is ok. In the above instance, they are including in Hate Speech any an all speech they don't agree with and then saying "see, we aren't infringing, we are just blocking hate speech". Same thing with gun controllers, "see we aren't infringing, we are just banning assault weapons" (never mind that their ever expanding definition of assault weapon includes almost every gun ever made). This is how they work. Here endeth today's lesson in authoritarianism.
I have never liked the "you can not yell fire in a crowded theater" line. Anyone can yell fire in a crowded theater they just have to face civil and criminal penalties for the harm caused by doing so.
People shouldn't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre because it might cause a panicky stampede and people will get killed and injured.
Now, on the original point. All rights are in some way restricted. I realise that that is anathema to the extreme libertarians but tough, it's how things are. Even John Stuart Mill pointed out the differences between liberty and licence. Given that then the rights which are mentioned in the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, of necessity, have to be limited in some way. What is important is that the limitations be as minimal as possible and only so that they are necessary for the general wellbeing of society. The right to freedom of expression is not untrammelled, it carries with it obligations. We've already covered what is probably the best-known example, but there are others. Defamation for one. As an example (purely theoretical) of a reasonable limit on the freedom of expression, it should be actionable where someone is, due to the public remarks made by someone else, actually harmed physically or economically or in some other manner which amounts to more than hurt feelings. So with the Second Amendment, it's reasonable for society to put in safeguards for the safe use of privately owned firearms. Nothing authoritarian about it, just common sense.
So the real comments I would like to hear from you is....what do you believe are the safeguards that would effectively protect society while protecting the intentions of the second amendment?
Oh please....tell me teach me Actually you can yell fire in a crowded theatre, Holmes was overturned.....but there are limits on speech and they are seen as Constitutional. Just like there are Constitutional limitations to the second. What is your problem? Actually I don't know anyone who does that. Name one person saying that. Why are you over at Democratic Underground? Actually it has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. The right to free speech is about the government filling charges against you for speech. Not some employee blocking Fox News. He can be fired for it and should be but can you tell me who's speech is violated? Hate speech is protected, speech encouraging lawlessness or violence is not. No, no nearly all guns are in the definition of assault weapons. Most gun control laws are actually toothless. H Actually it seemed more like a lesson in how to lie like a conservative.
I'm not the OP but I will attempt to teach Let's start with your position on gun control please. Thanks Well as to cases Holmes wasn't overturned because it was not his decision exclusively it was a unanimous decision, the case that was overturned was actually Schenck V the United States. but not the way you are implying. You are still limited in FREE speech if you FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theater. The overturning case, Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action which is actually what we are talking about. You can study both those cases if you want but you still can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater without consequences. Bloomberg and even further, he wants to outright do away with the 2nd A. He is spending lotsa money to get all the little sheep to repeat his crude. I suspect that is the biggie but there are more. Not because they are poorly written, because there is no enforcement of them...look up how many prosecutions at the federal level in Illinois....now that is the real reason for toothlessness. I see a response coated in antigun misdirection...but hey, that's just me eh!
Actually the discussion of whether you can shout fire falsely in a crowded theatre would depend on the results. But the lie was about the taking away the first amendment rights. Actually can you post where Bloomberg said he wanted to repeal the second.
Firstly it's necessary to agre on the "intentions" of the Second Amendment. I'm happy to go with the current interpretation of the US Sup Ct on it, no need for us to hash over the militia argument. Let's just say that the private ownership of firearms in the US is protected by the Second Amendment. How are you with that?
Well, it is perfectly acceptable that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater (unless there is actually a fire) because it infringes on other unalienable rights. Theaters are private property and if you do so with no other purpose than to cause chaos, you are infringing on other rights and endangering other rights like the right to life. To infringe on law abiding citizens rights to self defense using the above, makes no sense. It has no connection what so ever.
Actually I would like you to point to the LIE. Guess I missed that. Actually I went on the comments about re-interpretation of the 2A to limit civil liberties....guess I interpret that to mean repeal, you can take it as you want. http://www.teaparty.org/bloomberg-i...-change-to-stop-terrorism-gun-violence-23386/
That's good. Now I have to make the point up front that I'm not "anti" firearms, not frightened of them, have owned and used many and while I don't hunt I am not opposed to hunting where the hunter is able to take what he or she needs for their own consumption and can do so efficiently with as little suffering to the quarry as possible. So, with respect, any allusions to me being a wuss when it comes to firearms or blood, are not going to hit home. Okay, off we go. I would like to put two categories of control in place, for the purpose of discussion and they go like this: 1. Persons - my basic premise is that all adults should be permitted to purchase, use, own, carry and so on but there be regulations as to all of those activities. The regulations should be of a utilitarian and not symbolic nature. As for children, I would be open to children being able to use under direct competent adult supervision. I should also make the point which is a little broad, that people engaged in occupations where firearms use was necessary (e.g. farmers) should have special provisions to allow them to carry out the aforementioned activities with a little more leeway. 2. Firearms - and this obviously comes down to sorts of firearms. Again basic premise is that firearms of all types should be regulated and necessarily divided into classes and that some firearms should be completely prohibited. Just one point. I am referring to lawful activities re firearms so any arguments about crime control are going to be largely irrelevant, I'm only too well aware that criminals, by definition, flout firearms control laws.
Advocating for more restrictions on the 2nd by pointing to restrictions on the 1st is wrong since there are already more restrictions on the 2nd than the 1st.
