|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
10-31-2017, 09:32 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.
|
...in what way is your right to free speech restricted?...this where I think you have it backwards....your right to free speech only becomes "restricted" as you like to put it in a perpetually flawed example...when you fail to use it responsibly(which is why I pointed this out to you previously rights/responsibilities)....you can say whatever you like, you are guaranteed the right to do so....at whatever point your speech infringes on the rights of another...then that speech may in some cases be punished through the courts but I think there needs to be physical harm or financial damage shown....you can apply this to other rights...except abortion...that one gets a pass
you seem to want to limit(federally) the rights of those that have yet to infringe on the rights of others through your arbitrary "restricting rights in the name of public safety"....and we can apply that to a whole host of things going forward and make the progressives really happy
|
|
|
|
10-31-2017, 09:49 AM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
...in what way is your right to free speech restricted?...this where I think you have it backwards....your right to free speech only becomes "restricted" as you like to put it in a perpetually flawed example...when you fail to use it responsibly(which is why I pointed this out to you previously rights/responsibilities)....you can say whatever you like, you are guaranteed the right to do so....at whatever point your speech infringes on the rights of another...then that speech may in some cases be punished through the courts but I think there needs to be physical harm or financial damage shown....you can apply this to other rights...except abortion...that one gets a pass
you seem to want to limit(federally) the rights of those that have yet to infringe on the rights of others through your arbitrary "restricting rights in the name of public safety"....and we can apply that to a whole host of things going forward and make the progressives really happy
|
"in what way is your right to free speech restricted?..."
It's a crime for me to threaten somebody.
"you seem to want to limit(federally) the rights of those that have yet to infringe on the rights of others through your arbitrary "restricting rights in the name of public safety"...."
Not exactly. I'm saying that some restrictions on firearms (let's assume they are state restrictions, not federal), in the interest of public safety, would appear to be constitutionally allowed. For example, the VA ban of firearms on campus, enacted by some of the founding fathers. They didn't say you could have guns as long as you don't threaten anyone. They said you could not posses guns on campus. So all I am saying, is this...if that state restriction (which prohibits the mere possession of firearms in certain situations) was considered constitutional by the founding fathers, then perhaps other proactive state restrictions would also be constitutional. At a minimum, clearly the founding fathers were OK with some proactive restrictions on the possession of firearms, even before said firearms were used to threaten anyone.
|
|
|
|
10-31-2017, 10:27 AM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"in what way is your right to free speech restricted?..."
It's a crime for me to threaten somebody. is it?
|
Jim...what is the difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater and yelling fire in an empty theater?
|
|
|
|
10-31-2017, 02:43 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
Jim...what is the difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater and yelling fire in an empty theater?
|
That matters why?
The founding fathers passed a state ban of all possession of firearms on campus. They presumed that was constitutional.
|
|
|
|
11-03-2017, 10:32 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
That matters why?
The founding fathers passed a state ban of all possession of firearms on campus. They presumed that was constitutional.
|
No, Jefferson and Madison did not pass a state ban restricting firearms on campus. The ban was strictly a University of Virginia campus ban. It was not a state law. It was not a statute. Jefferson and Madison would not have imposed on the right of any college or business, or association or household to either allow nor restrict guns on their property. A state law would have meant that no campuses could allow guns on their property. That was not the case.
It would have been unconstitutional to pass a law that forbade carrying a gun on campuses. That would have had to have been campus decisions, not a state or federal decision.
|
|
|
|
11-03-2017, 10:42 AM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
No, Jefferson and Madison did not pass a state ban restricting firearms on campus. The ban was strictly a University of Virginia campus ban. It was not a state law. It was not a statute. Jefferson and Madison would not have imposed on the right of any college or business, or association or household to either allow nor restrict guns on their property. A state law would have meant that no campuses could allow guns on their property. That was not the case.
It would have been unconstitutional to pass a law that forbade carrying a gun on campuses. That would have had to have been campus decisions, not a state or federal decision.
|
"The ban was strictly a University of Virginia campus ban. It was not a state law."
Fine. It was a campus ban. But college campuses are also subject to the US Constitution, they are not allowed to violate constitutional rights. And obviously the founding fathers didn't think the ban was unconstitutional, and since they wrote the constitution, they presumably know a thing or two about what's constitutional.
|
|
|
|
11-03-2017, 10:48 AM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Fine. It was a campus ban. But college campuses are also subject to the US Constitution, they are not allowed to violate constitutional rights. And obviously the founding fathers didn't think the ban was unconstitutional, and since they wrote the constitution, they presumably know a thing or two about what's constitutional.
|
what I said in the other thread
|
|
|
|
10-31-2017, 10:28 AM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
At a minimum, clearly the founding fathers were OK with some proactive restrictions on the possession of firearms, even before said firearms were used to threaten anyone.
|
this is becoming comical
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 AM.
|
| |