Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by KevinWestern, Apr 2, 2013.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    And thus ends our conversation, with a defacto admission that you cannot soundly support your position.
    Thank you for playing, and for not resorting to ad homs.
     
  2. Jimmy_Jam
    Offline

    Jimmy_Jam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,071
    Thanks Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +136
    Is that really what you think, that I am admitting I cannot soundly support my position? I already have. The doctrine of prior restraint pertains specifically to free speech. I didn't know much about it before our discussion, and I am glad I have learned more about. You are taking the proverbial square peg and trying to fit into a round hole.

    If background searches are unconstitutional, it is not because of prior restraint, and you have provide nothing that indicates there is any relevance whatsoever. I was interested in exploring this concept with you, and I tried my best, but I simply cannot take a concept that applies to restrictions of free speech and apply it to buying a gun. It has no business on the premises except in the loosest of ways.

    To be perfectly clear, I am a gun-owner and value my 2nd Amendment rights. While there may be valid arguments for and against background checks, this one puzzles me. I have searched extensively and the only relevance of prior restraint to the 2nd Amendment comes from sites offering essentially op-ed pieces that are trying to make that claim. Should a case ever be brought regarding gun control that uses prior restraint as a premise would certainly be met with the same response: "this has to do with free speech how?"

    So, it's a shame that you don't want to discuss it further, but it's been stimulating and I appreciate you.
     
  3. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    This entire paragraph serves to demonstrate that you either missed the point I made, or ignored it.
    :dunno:
     
  4. Jimmy_Jam
    Offline

    Jimmy_Jam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,071
    Thanks Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +136
    It's possible. All I can really gather is that you are construing that the doctrine of prior restraint applies outside of free speech.

    At this point, I can't see that it does. Likewise, I have tried to find information that supports such a claim, and thus far have been unable to. And believe me, I have tried. You are applying a certain logic to say that it does apply to all rights. I just don't get it. It's possible that I am just too dense to see your logic, or I am over-simplifying. Can you explain to me how a legal concept that applies to the censorship of speech prior to publication applies to background checks?
     
  5. Politico
    Offline

    Politico Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    13,855
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    Anyone see on CNN the other night? When they were talking about Zimmerman and stand your ground the entire screen was a video panning over a table of ARs. What a bunch of douchebags.
     
  6. Survivalist
    Offline

    Survivalist Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    193
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Near Swamp
    Ratings:
    +28
    Fortunately, I missed that. Sometimes I'll flip over to MSNBC or CNN for a little while to see what they have to say. But just like looking at a public toliet that didn't flush, I don't watch it for long.

    If you live right next to one of the 100 areas that are going to have anti-White or Hispanic Trayvon rallies. You might want to have an AR type weapon if the rage of these hate-mongers boils over and they start rioting.



    $1001518_556247451100260_964014241_n.jpg

    This poor Jarhead should have known: "Without my weapon, I am useless."

    Hate Crime: Marine Beaten and Stabbed by Group of African American Males | The Daily Sheeple
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2013
  7. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    27,848
    Thanks Received:
    6,628
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +16,938
    the threat of national riots

    is a good reason to have an ar -15

    during the LA riots

    the Korean store owners

    remained free of looting and rampage by defending theirs

    with firearms
     
  8. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    That's because priopr restraint is a concept - restraining the exercise of a right prior to its exercise to determine if said exercise violates the law violates the rights of those so restrained unless the state can show that it has a compelling interest in that restraint, and that said restraint is the least restrictive means to achive that interest. Because it is a concept, it applies to each right every bit as much as any other, absent a sound argument as to why there should be an exception for any specific right.

    The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2013
  9. Jimmy_Jam
    Offline

    Jimmy_Jam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,071
    Thanks Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +136
    Prior restraint is more than a concept. It is a legal doctrine, specifically a free speech doctrine. If one wants to apply this doctrine outside of free speech because they think it would work there, so be it. However, I am discussing the doctrine exactly as it is defined.
     
  10. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    As I said:

    The fact that current juispridence only recognizes the concept of prior restraint as applied to the rights protected by the 1st amendment in no way neceeistates that those rights are the ONLY such rights protected from it.

    By only considering the concept as held by current jurisprudence is to deliberately side-step the discussion.
     

Share This Page