Libel, slander, and the right to arms

[M14 Shooter]

From Kip Kinkle to the fruitloop in the Colorado theater, it is the firepower that the very large magazine on a semi-automatic has that has wreaked havoc. How does one take down someone that can fire 50 to 100 times before reloading?

Does one need more than five shots for defense in a high powered rifle? What is the number of times that a nutjob uses one of the guns with a large magazine in these murder rampages as compared to the ordinary hunting rifles that people like myself own?

Except that his rifle jammed and that high capacity mag was useless after that. The shooting was with 2 handguns and a shot gun. As far as I know, the pistols did not have high capacity magazines.

You're assuming that the death toll was not reduced because the gun jammed. The sole purpose of a 100 round magazine is to deliver a massive quantity of firepower in a short amount of time to inflict mass casualties with the greatest efficiency.

Sounds like -exactly- the sort of firearm the 2nd was intended to protect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except that his rifle jammed and that high capacity mag was useless after that. The shooting was with 2 handguns and a shot gun. As far as I know, the pistols did not have high capacity magazines.

You're assuming that the death toll was not reduced because the gun jammed. The sole purpose of a 100 round magazine is to deliver a massive quantity of firepower in a short amount of time to inflict mass casualties with the greatest efficiency.

Sounds like -exactly- the sort of firearm the 2nd was intended to protect.

Since the 2nd amendment was not specific on which weapons, real or imagined, it was protecting, the constitutional solution to that problem is to 1) allow the Supreme Court to make an interpretation, or, 2) allow the other 2 branches to amend the Constitution to clarify the matter.

 

[flacaltenn]

The question, then:
What harm does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause to others?
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I look forward to your on-on-topic responses.

ahoy M14 Shooter,

1) i don't think ownin' a firearm, in and of itself, causes any danger to anyone in particular. this, by the way, be why i think all nations ought to be armed with nuclear weapons...afterall, nukes don't kill people, people kill people, aye?

2) since thar always be the possibility that one mighty use said firearm, i'd say that puts folks who be nearby in clear and present danger. i mean, if i had a bomb strapped to me torso, that also would put all folks 'round me in clear and present danger, i reckon, aye? the very fact that i've the option to detonate the bomb would sorta endanger them who be 'round me.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

Must be from a "lower class" of pirate than the guys I know.. But you're funny.. Because the picture of someone strapping a bomb to themselves FOR SELF DEFENSE or DEFENSE OF OTHERS is a knee-slapper..

Especially because as a pirate -- you should be sharper about using the RIGHT WEAPON for the job --- eh Matey????

 

[flacaltenn]

Why are we EVEN debating magazine capacities when the Founders and our country used to write Letters of Marque and Reprisal to allow PRIVATEERS with the 18th Century equivalents of BATTLESHIPS in their PRIVATE possession to go rid the sea lanes of pirates and other threats?

Is a BATTLESHIP a prohibited weapon according to our history? Replete with CANNONS? No..

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're assuming that the death toll was not reduced because the gun jammed. The sole purpose of a 100 round magazine is to deliver a massive quantity of firepower in a short amount of time to inflict mass casualties with the greatest efficiency.

Sounds like -exactly- the sort of firearm the 2nd was intended to protect.

Since the 2nd amendment was not specific on which weapons, real or imagined, it was protecting....

The court spoke on this in Miller and Heller; given what it said. there's no sound way to argue that 'assault weapons' are not protected.

If you disagree, you are free to presrnt an argument to the contrary.
You will fail to do so, of course.

 

[Wiseacre]

When discussing limitations on the right to arms, many people offer that we have restrictions on things such as libel, slander and yelling fire in a theater; if the right to free speech can be so limited, the right to arms can be similarly limited. Because of this, it is argued, restriction on the simple ownership/possession of a firearm, like licensing, registration, background checks and waiting periods, are all constitutionally permissible.

To then look at the issue..

Libel and slander are not protected by the 1st because they cause harm to others.
Yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the 1st because it places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

The question, then:
What harm does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause to others?
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I look forward to your on-on-topic responses.

In your own home, I see no problem. Going hunting, no problem. Lincensed to carry in public by the police, no problem. But ordinary citizens packing heat in public? I think the risk of harm to others is higher than it otherwise would be. It may not be clear, present, and immediate, right up until the bullets start flying. But do we want to wait until people are dead to say, well I guess there was possible harm after all; kinda too late then.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When discussing limitations on the right to arms, many people offer that we have restrictions on things such as libel, slander and yelling fire in a theater; if the right to free speech can be so limited, the right to arms can be similarly limited. Because of this, it is argued, restriction on the simple ownership/possession of a firearm, like licensing, registration, background checks and waiting periods, are all constitutionally permissible.

To then look at the issue..

Libel and slander are not protected by the 1st because they cause harm to others.
Yelling fire in a theater is not protected by the 1st because it places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

The question, then:
What harm does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause to others?
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

I look forward to your on-on-topic responses.

In your own home, I see no problem.

So agree that the 1st amendment examples noted above do not provide argumentative precedent for restrictions on the simple posession/ownership of firearms.
Thank you.