a fabulous free speech debate....could not stop listening

https://livestream.com/accounts/7106...deos/163491464

Pat Robertson has taught you well Bruce. Are you still hanging with the John Birch society as well?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never listened to Pat Robertson in my life so assume what you want , as long as there is a constitution, it is your right to do that, it doesn't make your opinion right, just different than mine. We can have a real conversation about it some day Chris.
Who is John Birch?
You don't have to answer because I don't really care.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really?

Freedom of speech - can't threaten someone, can't yell "fire" in a theater, can't possess or create kiddie porn.

Freedom of religion - no human sacrifices, no mutilating women's genitalia

2nd amendment - all kinds of things you can't buy

We agree that what happened is horrible, and we both hope it never happens again. we can leave it at that.

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

"I don't find such an enumeration for gun control."

Then you'd be OK with someone buying a nuke?

Just giving examples of folks who share your values Bruce. Educate yourself and become enlightened by doing a search. Surely if a Rand Paul has your attention then you owe it to yourself to become familiar with like minded groups.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he explained this very clearly, I have no idea how you missed it

really?

every example you listed speech/religion would be an infringement on rights of others which is how you lose your rights and freedom


tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others?

Jim.. the little loophole you are fixating on says nothing about the students not beating able to own weapons. They just can’t bring them to campus. They could store them at an outside residence, their family homestead or at a local armory, etc for safe keeping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like you, I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone...

You asked for examples of restrictions of our freedoms. You didn't qualify your request. I answered the question that you asked.

"tell me how "all kinds of things you can't buy" infringes on the rights of others"

Our country has limited the types of weapons you can buy, for a long long time. We impose these limitations on ourselves, for the sake of public safety. You already know this, so I can't fathom why you are asking the things you are asking.

You say (repeatedly) that you are in favor of banning bump stocks, then you seem to be making the argument that we shouldn't be banning anything...you are the one who is all over the place.

Scott and Detbuch...there are all kinds of restrictions on our freedoms (our freedoms to do certain things, to say certain things, to possess certain things) that are imposed for the sake of public safety. Only an anarchist would state that we don't need any restrictions, or a staunch libertarian I suppose...

In the wake of some high profile mass murders, I happen to believe that public safety could be improved, with some additional restrictions.

If neither of you thinks that a billionaire should be able to buy a nuke on Amazon, then you both agree we need these restrictions. We just disagree on where to draw the line.

This has been surreal.

"Jefferson owned many guns. And he recommended carrying a gun with you"

Not on a college campus, he didn't. Therefore, he was OK with certain restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, in the interest of broader public safety.

Jeez...

Anyone want to comment on anyone else's height?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you should listen to or watch the free speech debate I posted, you will recognize many similar arguments and sentiments

I answered this in post #208 of this thread. Constitutional law cannot conflict with its purpose. Personal, private property rights are understood to be protected from encroachment by other laws unless such encroachment is specifically granted in the constitution. People have the right to restrict guns being carried on their property. The right to bear arms, or anything else, including yourself, on someone else's property can be restricted by the owner. This can be said about speech, religion, or other rights in The Bill of Rights. Your example does not imply some vague, unspecified right of government to restrict the right to bear arms.

I might also add that broader public safety was constitutionally meant to be a local and state issue, not a federal one.

And the federal government already has accomplished unlimited power for itself by expanding its scope beyond its enumerated limitations (as in the example in post 188 which responded to your questioning how expanding laws could make bad law). Broadening its scope of power outside of its enumerated powers, as in giving it the ability to regulate the country's public safety, would certainly give it even more of what little power is left for it to take. And, given that its established enumerated power is already considered limitless, imagine what regulatory claims it can have on all facets of society if it can add to that the ability to find a safety issue concerning any constitutional right.

Your method of using various peripheral laws, especially those that are mostly state issues, as examples which can be used as precedents for similar federal expansion of its other powers or to give it powers it doesn't already have, can eventually make the Constitution irrelevant. It is actually a Progressive model which pretty much does that.

That's nice . . . but leaving it at that . . . and all the rest above that, leaves the Constitution hanging in the balance.

One final thing, Jim. you said "I feel like I'm talking to people who are trying to defend slavery. That's how hard it is for me to believe that otherwise rational and logical people, can be so...I don't know... extremist? thoughtless? Unsympathetic to the victims? I have very close friends who agree with you and detbuch, these are guys of high intelligence and very solid moral character. I just can't fathom their position on this issue."

I can fathom your position on this issue. But it seems absurd, to me. Being sympathetic to victims of mass shootings to the point of demanding some, yet undefined law to add to or replace those that have not prevented the tragedies with which you sympathise, yet not demanding more laws that are supposed to diminish hand gun deaths which vastly outnumber semi-automatic gun deaths just because more are killed at once with the latter.

It seems just a trifle cold-blooded to not get worked up to the point of demanding more gun control of handguns just because only one or two are killed at a time.

And it seems illogical to me that you would not think that the end game is to ban hand guns as well. It has even been stated by leftists that that's the goal. And that every gun control restriction that can be imposed on the law-abiding gun owners is one step further toward the goal. And that the immediate and vociferous calls for more control after every mass shooting is meant to ultimately create an emotional environment in which the majority of the people will finally give in to the leftists ultimate demands.

An awful lot of people share those views: we are taxed too much, the Government is too big, more people need to work harder for their share. When did those become radical ideas? How dare someone try to prevent the Socialist Organization to Protect the Brotherhood of the Workers Party Unite you Running Lacky Dogs.

Pulling Robertson and JBS is a bit of a stretch.


Nope but IQ is fair game :laugha:

Robertson is the author of New World Order. A conspiracy on par with Roswell. Tin foilers unite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"not demanding more laws that are supposed to diminish hand gun deaths "

Of course I recognize that many more Americans are killed in garden-variety gun crime, where handguns are used. I am a huge advocate of discussing any and all policies which might serve to help this plague. But this is a very different problem than the rare (not rare enough) mass shootings. I for one, think it's possible to want to talk about solutions for mass shootings, and to support policies that reduce 'normal' handgun crime, at the same time. It's not one or the other. Caring about one issue, does not preclude me from caring about the other.,

"It seems just a trifle cold-blooded to not get worked up to the point of demanding more gun control of handguns just because only one or two are killed at a time."

Again, wanting to make it harder for mass shootings to occur, doesn't mean I'm not concerned (even more concerned) about handgun crime. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

"illogical to me that you would not think that the end game is to ban hand guns as well."

Maybe that's some people's end game, but I don't think it's many people's end game. The other extreme, is that there are zero restrictions, in which case you'd be more comfortable if George Soros could buy a nuke on Amazon.

OK. So here are your arguments (not just you arguments, but what everyone on your side, is saying) against any proposals that are designed to make it harder to carry out mass shootings:

(1) I need my bump stocks and high capacity magazines in case the US military wages war against me (because that will allow me to stand up to Delta Force soldiers and Seal Team 6)

(2) if we ban things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines, that's not a 100% guarantee that there will be zero mass shootings in the future, so unless the law is 100% perfect, it's not worth pursuing. Because unless you can save all lives, saving "some" lives is not a worthy goal.

(3) if you take away things like bump stocks and magazines, we are irrevocably down the slippery slope whereby the feds will take my handgun and put me in a concentration camp. It's not possible to ban some things, without going to the extreme of banning everything. Moderation is not possible.

(4) it's inappropriate to try and prevent mass shootings, because there are bigger problems in the world right now, and talking about addressing mass shootings, necessarily means that you don't care about people who die in other ways.

I was talking about this issue with some conservative friends of mine last night, all of them regurgitating slight variations of one of the above arguments. There is no talking to my friends on this subject, they just put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen. It's like talking to Sandra Fluke about abortion.

I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events, and a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers. Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons.

You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. The "need" argument should not be used in order to restrict freedom. Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. And to further your arguments of need, utility, and danger, you, and "your side," bring in notions of buying nuclear weapons, or tanks, or other behemoth weapons . . . just in case, I guess, that could actually happen. Do you know of anyone who "needs" or even wants such things? Or how it is even possible to legally buy them? Do you "need" moderation of law so badly that you use such examples?

Even it were possible to buy ultra destructive weapons in times of peace, what about another possibility. You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) But if it's possible for common folks in a modern democracy to buy weapons of mass destruction and then use them to kill huge populations, presumably for fun, or madness, or power, why is it not possible for a modern, democratic government, which can interpret and moderate existing law into means of restricting freedom, to also use its weapons to consolidate power in order to totally mandate what freedom is or isn't. If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms for what you consider a noble purpose, how do you restrict a government from using its power, for supposedly benevolent purposes, over the people whom it is supposed to serve?

You want a "reasonable" moderation of law in order to save some lives. What is a reasonable moderation of government power over ALL the people? Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable? What reasonable law gives the people such power to resist tyrannical force? Hand guns and limited magazines? What is the people's power if it is possible, by moderation of law, to limit the people's ability to defend themselves against government force?

Do you say that Democracy is the people's ultimate power? The power to vote? The last and most important resort? (They do vote in dictatorships.) Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule. If the mob is cultivated by the government, educationally, financially, morally, philosophically, politically--as Progressive ideology strives to do--and has persuaded the majority that the ruler's "reasonable" fairness, largesse, and control, is right and just, the power of the vote is sealed into the hands of government. The vote is bought and paid for by that government and sustained by its propaganda of mass justice. "Freedom" in that instance becomes a word, if still even used, to mean what that government says it means. And, what Progressives mean by that word is what they prescribe. And the freedoms they promise, in order to keep the people happy, are government provided "freedoms" FROM such things as want or emotional or physical suffering. They are not freedoms OF something individuals inherently possess . . . and which the government cannot abridge or deny. By "interpreting," thus changing, the word into meaning what Progressives want it to mean, freedom, no longer exists unless they say it does.

If such a state of affairs has already been achieved, it may well be too late for those who believe in the ultimate value of individual rights to resist a benevolent despotism. The only recourse is the inevitable financial collapse of such a society. Which could lead to another revolution to return to a classically liberal one, or for society to further collapse into recent forms of harsher tyranny, or even ancient ones that could last for thousands of years.

Isn't absolute adherence to the Constitution, not a moderate interpretation of it, a means to resist such a collapse?

And isn't the actual purpose of the Second Amendment one of the expressed points in the Constitution meant to give the people the power to resist tyranny? If the people cannot be trusted to support the actual freedom the Constitution gives them because some very few of them might use their freedom to kill others, then the Constitution should, indeed, be a useless relic.

But can they, on the whole, if they understand what freedom really is, be trusted not to misuse the power given to them for defense against tyranny? If they can, so informed, be trusted, what is the danger of the Second Amendment in its actual meaning and intent? Why must it be submitted to the process of moderation, which will become incessant until the Amendment is erased?

I think your other suggestion of returning to moral and other values would greatly limit the abuse of the Second Amendment, as well as the abuse of the Constitution as a whole. We should actually educate our citizens, beginning in childhood, on the real meaning of freedom, why it is necessary for the fulfillment of wonderful notions that are used to despair it such as fairness, equality, and justice. It would help to teach them the value of economics and how economy can work to reign in not only their personal financial destruction, but to reign in government spending into fiscal unsustainability. It would help to teach them in depth the reasoning of and final drafting of the Constitution, how and why it protects real freedom, and the dangers of interpreting it on personal emotions and notions of social justice. And much more teaching of various values that create a successful society of free individuals.

But, in my opinion, avoiding that path because it is deemed too difficult, or because those who teach don't believe any of it anyway, and instead keep tinkering on meanings of words, changing history, marginalizing the Constitution, and embracing government as the answer rather than personal responsibility, furthers the path to tyranny with the constant little "moderations" of law instead of teaching and instilling liberty and right living.

"I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events"

Guilty as charged.

"a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers"

My lack of trust isn't entirely a figment of my imagination, is it? There are perfectly innocent people in the ground, some of whom I feel would be alive today, if such things were banned. I would lose no sleep if you had such things, or if my Dad had such things. But there are small number of very sick people out there.

"Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons. "

Correct. The same logic applies to speed limits. Some drivers are capable of driving 100 mph and never doing any damage. But some can't. We recognize that, and ratified laws to forcibly moderate all drivers, even those who aren't a danger to others.

It has been generally accepted in our history, that the second amendment isn't absolute or limitless. Not many people would support the idea of a citizen being able to buy a stealth bomber or a rail gun or a nuke. The founding fathers were onboard with the notion of limiting the rights of all of us to bring guns on the campus of the University Of Virginia. Which tells me, that they never intended the "right to keep and bear arms" to be without limits.

"You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. "

Correct.

"Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. '

I disagree, and think you argument here is flawed. No one is suggesting that we ban everything that isn't necessary. I am suggesting we talk about banning things that (1) are not necessary, AND (2) can be used, as intended, to kill large numbers of citizens, in a small amount of time. You left out that second condition of what I would consider banning, and it's an important distinction.

"(whatever your or my "side" is)"

"My" side are those that would consider banning a small number of items in the name of public safety, "your" side, on this issue, are those who refuse. And I think you are more than smart enough to have already known that.

"You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "

In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.

"If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms"

I am confident that the data shows that the overwhelming majority of citizens have exactly zero interest in gun stocks and high capacity magazines. And as I have said, I feel their "right" to own such things, is a matter of opinion, rather than a constitutional certainty.

"Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable?"

Yes. And in our country, the courts (and the constitution) give us all kinds of protection against tyranny. A couple of rifles in my basement, provide very little protection against tyranny. The feds can kill us all if they wanted, and there would be precious little we can do about it, armed or unarmed. If you want to convince me that I'm safer from tyranny if I get my Dad's Marlin .22 and keep it under my bed, well, that makes exactly zero sense to me.

"Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule"

Correct. Which is why we don't have that, we have a Republic, which is restricted by the Constitution.

I want to discuss banning the weapons of war. I am not going to be persuaded against having that conversation, because of your elegantly-worded fears that it would lead to cultural, economic, historical ruin of our nation.

Every criminal law on the books, restricts the choices that we can make. In my opinion, it would be a good idea to increase the restrictions, or further decrease liberty if that's how you prefer to frame it, if even one life can be saved, and very little (in my opinion, obviously many disagree) is given up in return.

We can probably put this to bed, until the next one.

Imagine the heads that explode when the gun store owner refuses to sell a gun to a gay man or woman over “religious beliefs”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Criminal law and Constitutional law are different things. Among other differences, the main one is that criminal law limits the people, and constitutional law limits the government, especially the federal government. And you do it again. You use one type of law as a transferrable example of how to impose another type. There is no confluence between criminal law and constitutional law. You cannot rightly use criminal law as a precedent for constitutional law.

And it has been quoted and stamped on by many others before, after, and unrelated to that crank Robertson

Jim quote = "You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "

In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.



detbuch quote = You colorfully fleshed out what I said. Thank you. But your kooky characterization is beside the point. The point of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution as a whole) is to dissuade the federal government from ever getting to that position. And if it ever arrived the war would not be as simple as you portray it. There would be those in the military who would prefer to launch hellfire missiles in the other direction. There would be those who would be willing to disperse weapons to as many civilians as was possible. If the majority of people were armed, and willing to fight, it would be difficult for the military remaining on the tyrannical side to defeat them. And there would not be enough hellfire missiles and fighter planes, etc. to wipe out a determined populace. That is the intention of the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

But if the people are not armed. And if enough of them are dependent on the government, and have been conditioned by media and schools, then, like the British with the Tories, the patriots would have a difficult time, no doubt. We are probably at such a point now where there is not enough conviction, or even belief, in constitutional principles to fight for them. And the dependence on government has gotten so large that numbers are in its favor. So the Second Amendment, what is left of it, is just one piece of resistance. The battle now is for peacefully, democratically, retaining what is left of the founding freedoms and to restore them before we quietly allow the fundamental transformation to become the law (indeterminate as it will be) of the land.

That is a conversation some, many, are not willing, interested in, or capable of having.



-----------------------------

Jim, they are picking away little by little until they reach their goal, can't you see that? I say there are enough laws already, the tyranny in this state I live in is appalling, it is telling that they can get a law passed thru the house in a week when it is a panic reactionary law about guns, yet they waffle on any number of bills that would help as a positive impact if they just looked at the real problem.

I would argue that Jefferson would never link the right secured by the federal 2nd Amendment with the arms restriction enforced on the grounds of the University of Virginia.

Why? The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws.

The argument that University of Virginia's weapons ban means Jefferson and Madison felt weapon bans were agreeable with the 2nd Amendment, is only extending the author's constitutional ignorance onto Madison and Jefferson.

We see the same disingenuous argument used by gun control supporters in reference to concealed weapon bans. Those statements only utter half of the doctrine; they proclaim loudly:

BANS ON CONCEALED WEAPONS WERE NEVER CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

But they never state the simple, unremarkable reason; the 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on state or local law.

.

Nurturing that mingling of criminal with constitutional law is a prime directive of the progressive agenda.

Criminalizing the simple exercising of protected activity and the possession and use of protected property is a daily endeavor.

The mutation and reforming of language is another; the redefining of what a "right" is has been ongoing for 75 years.

Today, social, cultural and economic rights which have no presence in, or legitimacy under, the COTUSA, enjoy a higher status than the original, fundamental retained rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights.

I've enjoyed your posts in this thread.

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period. After the Civil War the NRA was founded not because of individual liberties but because Union generals were disgusted with poor marksmanship skills. It really wasn't until the 1960s/70s and Civil Rights movement that the NRA got political seeking to get attention for the Second Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights was being pushed by a more progressive agenda.

As you so eloquently put it, what a crock.