Founders and Framers on the People's Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[cjh]

Incorrect, CH. Permits to march through town are required because you are using public right-of-ways and causing congestion. Filing a plan with the local government allows them to make plans to handle that congestion, including extra police to do traffic control around the venue. I don't agree with having to purchase a permit; you should be able to notify the government of your intent so they know to get ready for it. The money they get from permits isn't even enough to cover the cost of the "permit" agency.

That in no way, however, impacted your right to free speech or right to assemble.

They could have gone on the internet just like we are. They could have written the newspaper, or printed brochures.

Look at it like this: There is a law on the books that states you must buy permission from the government to hold an assembly in a public place. That law's been on the books for decades. The group you cite knowingly and willingly violated that law and was only punished after the damage was done.

Nowhere did anyone strip them of their right to assemble or their right to speak. They only said that if you're going to do it here, in a public space, you must file the appropriate paperwork with the government because you are using public space and causing congestion. You could assemble at someone's home or a private business. You can speak til your heart's content on the internet or through printed brochures.

No license needed to do either. No regulation to do either.

And when they did violate the law, they were punished. The damage was done, however. They were punished after the fact and not one letter in the law stopped them from breaking it.

Limiting the time, the place, and the manner of speech in any way is the regulation of speech.

Any regulation of speech--regardless of the reason--is a limitation on speech.

Failure to get a permit means that you will not get to speak in the manner you chose.

By your analogy, you are not prevented from yelling fire in a crowded theater simply because you can type "fire" and post it on a web site.

The term you are looking for is prior restraint. And yes, we frown seriously upon prior restraint of speech. But even speech can be restrained beforehand if significant competing interests are implicated and if the restraint is sufficiently narrow.

There are no unbounded constitutional rights. All are subject to some form of regulation in light of other concerns.

The right to speech. The right to worship. The right to own guns.

As Justice Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Yea pretty much. And since you're legitimately trying to argue for a 100% lawless society I suggest you move to Somalia immediately. Mogadishu is nice this time of year

You're real good at assuming facts not in evidence, BB!

I never said I was interested in no laws. I said that YOU are wanting to add one law on top of another, and never actually enforcing any of them. Did you bother reading the links I posted earlier? What's the point of having any federal gun laws if only 2% of the infractions are going to be prosecuted? That means the government is willingly ignoring 98% of the violations.

Either they cannot prosecute all of the bad guys because of time and budget constraints, or they don't want to. In either case, adding another law isn't going to help.

Yet you want to add another law or twelve when you have no reason to believe that they will be enforced?

Those folks in CH's post knew the law and violated, then they were punished. There was no mention of licensing them to speak or registering them as vocal-chord owners.

So, I'll say this; instead of adding another law on the books, get your house in order first. If there's a problem with the system that precludes you actually doing your job, adding more to the job isn't going to work. That's basic physics.

If we can see anything, it is that the lack of enforcement only exacerbates the problem. If there's no realistic punitive action, why would anyone be worried about committing the crime?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ferrumitzal reeks like she's from FL I'm just waiting for an obana to slip out....*sniff* smells like....*sniff sniff*......trailer park.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're real good at assuming facts not in evidence, BB!

You can ham it up all you want but you have sat here repeatedly and argued "It's not working 100% fool proof so far, why even bother? " which is an unrealistic and simply ASSHOLE point to even start a discussion much less carry one on. I'm sorry.....until you can be civilized I'm going to politely have to ask that you take that crazy and fuck right off.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Limiting the time, the place, and the manner of speech in any way is the regulation of speech.

Any regulation of speech--regardless of the reason--is a limitation on speech.

Failure to get a permit means that you will not get to speak in the manner you chose.

Incorrect at the most basic level. The permit process is only to limit the impact on other people's rights, and we've seen it abused on numerous accounts when the speakers were "politically incorrect". Why would you want to increase that government authority?

You can speak all you want, on any subject you want, using any words that you want. You just can't not get a permit when doing it in a public area, and that's only illegal because the government says it's illegal because they want the control.

Look in any big city and you'll see dozens of corner preachers with sandwich boards spouting their rhetoric without a permit... and the local constabulary accepts it.

By your analogy, you are not prevented from yelling fire in a crowded theater simply because you can type "fire" and post it on a web site.

Again incorrect. There is NOTHING stopping you from yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is a common misdirection used, and it couldn't be further from the truth. Prevention means you stop something before it happens. The only way to stop someone from yelling anything in a theater would be to glue their jaws shut. It is only after they have yelled, and we've found their warning was unjustified, that they are subject to punitive actions. If the warning was justified, they are hailed as a hero.

There is zero "prior restraint".

Furthermore, there's no talk of restraining everybody because of the actions of one idiot. If Bob committed a crime, any crime, Bob should be punished. But Sally shouldn't be punished because of what Bob did.

And yes, we frown seriously upon prior restraint of speech. But even speech can be restrained beforehand if significant competing interests are implicated and if the restraint is sufficiently narrow.

But you're not applying that same standard to the 2nd Amendment. Instead, the idea is to do broad restrictions in the hopes that it MIGHT help in the future. This even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that shows the problem lies squarely on the government's refusal to prosecute offenders.

You talk about the 1st Amendment being restricted only in very narrow instances, and only when there is a compelling conflict with another issue. But even that faces very public challenges from the media and groups like the ACLU. With the 2nd Amendment, it's exactly the opposite.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

You can ham it up all you want but you have sat here repeatedly and argued "It's not working 100% fool proof so far, why even bother? " which is an unrealistic and simply ASSHOLE point to even start a discussion much less carry one on. I'm sorry.....until you can be civilized I'm going to politely have to ask that you take that crazy and fuck right off.

Actually, BB, you're the one that's doing the name-calling and making assumptions. I never said the laws didn't work 100% so get rid of them. I said they are not being enforced in any measurable way. You cannot claim that the system is broken if you're not using the system. And you cannot say that we need new laws when the old laws simply are not being used.

Read the links I provided earlier. 98% of federal gun laws are not being prosecuted. But you want to add one more? What makes you think it would be enforced?

 

[cjh]

Incorrect at the most basic level. The permit process is only to limit the impact on other people's rights, and we've seen it abused on numerous accounts when the speakers were "politically incorrect". Why would you want to increase that government authority?

You can speak all you want, on any subject you want, using any words that you want. You just can't not get a permit when doing it in a public area, and that's only illegal because the government says it's illegal because they want the control.

Look in any big city and you'll see dozens of corner preachers with sandwich boards spouting their rhetoric without a permit... and the local constabulary accepts it.



Again incorrect. There is NOTHING stopping you from yelling fire in a crowded theater. This is a common misdirection used, and it couldn't be further from the truth. Prevention means you stop something before it happens. The only way to stop someone from yelling anything in a theater would be to glue their jaws shut. It is only after they have yelled, and we've found their warning was unjustified, that they are subject to punitive actions. If the warning was justified, they are hailed as a hero.

There is zero "prior restraint".

Furthermore, there's no talk of restraining everybody because of the actions of one idiot. If Bob committed a crime, any crime, Bob should be punished. But Sally shouldn't be punished because of what Bob did.



But you're not applying that same standard to the 2nd Amendment. Instead, the idea is to do broad restrictions in the hopes that it MIGHT help in the future. This even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that shows the problem lies squarely on the government's refusal to prosecute offenders.

You talk about the 1st Amendment being restricted only in very narrow instances, and only when there is a compelling conflict with another issue. But even that faces very public challenges from the media and groups like the ACLU. With the 2nd Amendment, it's exactly the opposite.

I have to go with Botany Boy here.

You and Jen are peas in a pod when it comes to critical thinking skills.

It's not worth trying to untangle that mangle of analysis.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Really, C? You mean you didn't say that you could yell fire in a theater because you were stopped beforehand?

Can you show me an instance where there's a broad ruling or law the stops a 1st Amendment usage?

 

[BotanyBoy]

But you want to add one more? What makes you think it would be enforced?

Because the law I want if I had it BB's way would be to fix that enforcement part the right wing never wants fixed and the left wing can't seem to pull it's head out far enough to actually take a stab at.

Things would be really fucking simple, you either jump through the hoops and get a licences to buy/own/carry weapons....demonstrate proficiency and pay your 27 dollar fee or if you are caught in possession without a licence you go to prison for a very long time.

Then I would end the war on drugs, prostitution, the internet, reallocate the resources where needed and start a war on illegal weapons and violent crimes. Something the police state quit giving a fuck about when they realized there wasn't enough money in it.

Actually, BB, you're the one that's doing the name-calling and making assumptions.

Actually, FERR I never said otherwise, I call people names because it fucking feels good and own it all fucking day.....fucking piece of shit

Making assumptions based of some pretty good evidence. You're going to argue anything other than "no laws because criminals don't listen!!" as pointless and an unthinkable infringement on your freedumb.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Well, seems we agree on that first part. The NRA and others have long been vocal about the need to fix the enforcement problem.

Sadly, until that happens, adding more laws cannot make a difference. To think otherwise is an assumption contrary to the evidence.

That's my point.

Jumping through hoops, licensing/registration/etc, has done nothing to stop the illegal use of anything. Not guns, cars, computers, whatever. Therefore, that is not the solution to fixing the problem. All that does is make law-abiding citizens jump through hoops while criminals ignore the hoops. Again, the evidence shows that to be the case.

If the government willingly ignores violations of the hoop-jumping, what's the point of having the hoop-jumping in the first place?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Jumping through hoops, licensing/registration/etc, has done nothing to stop the illegal use of anything. Not guns, cars, computers, whatever. Therefore, that is not the solution to fixing the problem. All that does is make law-abiding citizens jump through hoops while criminals ignore the hoops. Again, the evidence shows that to be the case.

Because we write lame ass laws we can't enforce. That doesn't mean we can't change things to remedy that....

And the evidence shows quite the opposite, stiff regulation and enforcement results in lower gun crimes across the board and as some nations have shown it can be done with very little impact upon the individuals ability to own weapons unless there is a specific reason they are banned (felons etc). It even worked here in the US with the NFA regarding automatic weapons, destructive devices, suppressors etc.. You're simply lying out your ass....

If the government willingly ignores violations of the hoop-jumping, what's the point of having the hoop-jumping in the first place?

So stop ignoring the hoop jumping you fucking twit. You keep saying that and it doesn't make it a more valid reason to ignore the problem.

 

[islandman]

]All that does is make law-abiding citizens jump through hoops while criminals ignore the hoops.[/B] Again, the evidence shows that to be the case.

This almost supposes that criminals have a wish-fairy from which to procure weapons, thereby ignoring said hoops.

As opposed to getting weapons from certain "law-abiding citizens".

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Island, where do criminals get anything? If they buy them from someone, that someone is not, by definition, "law-abiding". Weed, crack, coke, meth, you name it, there's a source, and that source isn't law-abiding. If it doesn't come from inside the US, it will be imported because the demand is there.

BB, you can call me a liar all day long and it won't change the facts.

If, as you said, "we write lame ass laws we can't enforce", how in the world can you trust these same idiots to write a decent law? By your own admission, they're idiots..... and they're supposed to be the best and brightest! They went to the best schools and got degrees in law, for fuck's sake!! They have hundreds of researchers to help them compile all the details..... and they still write a law that can't be enforced? How fucking stupid is that?!?

How about looking into why the current laws aren't enforced instead of simply saying that they cannot be enforced.

 

[BotanyBoy]

 

[islandman]

Island, where do criminals get anything? If they buy them from someone, that someone is not, by definition, "law-abiding". Weed, crack, coke, meth, you name it, there's a source, and that source isn't law-abiding. If it doesn't come from inside the US, it will be imported because the demand is there.

They are not, but you don't know that until after the fact.

So, short of a time machine at your disposal, the head of this particular supply chain is a law-abiding individual who then proceeds to break the law.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Island, and no laws on the books have ever prevented someone from engaging in a course of action if they weren't willing and able and wanting to do it.

 

[islandman]

Island, and no laws on the books have ever prevented someone from engaging in a course of action if they weren't willing and able and wanting to do it.

I don't think anyone here - least of all me - is operating under that assumption.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

I don't think anyone here - least of all me - is operating under that assumption.

Apparently not. Otherwise there wouldn't be the clamor for more laws and regulations. The only reason you'd demand more laws and regulations is because you believe that they will solve the problem.

Even BB has admitted that "we write lame ass laws we can't enforce" so he wants to write more laws, "better" laws, that can be enforced. And never asks why the existing laws are not or cannot be enforced, or how we could possibly trust the idiots that wrote the first laws to somehow pull their collective heads out of their ass to get it right the next time.

 

[koalabear]

They are not, but you don't know that until after the fact.

So, short of a time machine at your disposal, the head of this particular supply chain is a law-abiding individual who then proceeds to break the law.

They can't get guns from law-abiding individuals. If they need guns they steal a car, run it through a gun shops wall and the gang cleans out the store. So simple even a simpleton like you should understand it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Apparently not. Otherwise there wouldn't be the clamor for more laws and regulations. The only reason you'd demand more laws and regulations is because you believe that they will solve the problem.

Even BB has admitted that "we write lame ass laws we can't enforce" so he wants to write more laws, "better" laws, that can be enforced. And never asks why the existing laws are not or cannot be enforced, or how we could possibly trust the idiots that wrote the first laws to somehow pull their collective heads out of their ass to get it right the next time.

And you will just keep ramming that one home with a "Fuck it don't even bother, no laws for anyone ever anywhere Because laws have never stopped anyone!!" attitude which you deny but offer nothing of substance other than "Fuck it don't even bother, no laws for anyone ever anywhere because laws have never sopped anyone!!" totally ignoring anything else said. So your big plan is to just ignore it right? That's real go getter and responsible of you too!

Are you ever going to contribute anything of substance to the conversation? No of course not...not many from the RW ever do, fucking piece of shit.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

And you will just keep ramming that one home with a "Fuck it don't even bother, no laws for anyone ever anywhere Because laws have never stopped anyone!!" attitude which you deny but offer nothing of substance other than "Fuck it don't even bother, no laws for anyone ever anywhere because laws have never sopped anyone!!" totally ignoring anything else said. So your big plan is to just ignore it right? That's real go getter and responsible of you too!

Are you ever going to contribute anything of substance to the conversation? No of course not...not many from the RW ever do, fucking piece of shit.

BBoy, I haven't ignored anything you've said. I've sat here and enjoyed every bit of silliness you've offered, and I'm pretty sure I've contributed far more than you have (see all those links?)

No where did I ever say to get rid of any laws or not prosecute crimes. That's just you making shit up with your addled brain, which I'm sure you'll blame on the republicans somehow.

Let me break it down into small words so you'll understand: Use the laws you already have. Period. That's it.

Asking law-abiding citizens to go through a bunch of beurocratic red tape just to ease your conscience is a waste of time and money because law-abiding citizens were never a problem. The links I posted clearly state that 98% of known federal violations are not prosecuted, so you can't say that the law doesn't work. They are choosing to ignore the law and the violations for whatever reason. Adding another law to the books just so it can be ignored is pure stupidity.

 

[BotanyBoy]

BBoy, I haven't ignored anything you've said.

Yea you do, you just keep talking about how the bureaucracy of law in a civilized society is completely pointless because criminals never follow laws and no law has ever stopped any crime.

No where did I ever say to get rid of any laws or not prosecute crimes. That's just you making shit up with your addled brain, which I'm sure you'll blame on the republicans somehow.

You haven't pointed out repeatedly that no law stops any crime?? Right..

Let me break it down into small words so you'll understand: Use the laws you already have. Period. That's it.

Let me break it down into small words so you'll understand.

The laws are written to be unenforceable on purpose, they are on the books just to exist and serve no real purpose other than to placate the left and entertain the right. We need to restructure the system because it's fucking broken beyond repair as made clearly evident by the glaring deficiency that is public security in the US of A.

I'm sorry your "Stick with the same ol shit that hasn't been working because old and broken is better than new and functioning!!" is dumber than all fuck and so typically conservative. As you get old enjoy watching the younger generations dismantle and destroy everything GOP.

 

[cjh]

Really, C? You mean you didn't say that you could yell fire in a theater because you were stopped beforehand?

Can you show me an instance where there's a broad ruling or law the stops a 1st Amendment usage?

I'm sitting here, in a tub full of warm water, racking my brain trying to think

of the last time a wordsmith

took down a bunch of schoolchildren with a barrage of words,

left a president's wife with a lap full of brains

with a well-placed adjective.

I'm sitting here wondering why you think bullets and words are fungible.

 

[jeninflorida]

Ferrumitzal reeks like she's from FL I'm just waiting for an obana to slip out....*sniff* smells like....*sniff sniff*......trailer park.

Wow .... clear signs of a mental illness on your part

 

[BotanyBoy]

Wow .... clear signs of a mental illness on your part