'Shoot first' laws make it tougher for burglars in the United States

[M14 Shooter]

Read Jillian's post. She is right. That is it. It isn't even a question of interpretation. It is the stated basis. Believe her. She is smart.

And, again, its based on public property.

 

[jillian]

Public safety CAN be an issue if whatever event I hold on my property is of sufficient size and open to the public -- but no matter what the venue or the number of people involved, if its on private property, the government cannot force me to get a permit.

300,000 people in a stadium built for 50,000 for a political rally clearly presents public safety concerns -- but if the stadium is private property, the government cannot touch it with a 'public safety permit'

And so, again, the restriction is --necessarily-- tied to public proiperty.


It certainly -does- care about people's safety on private property -- that's why there are building codes.

Even using your analogy, it is still reasonable to pre-screen gun-owners. The guns are taken in public, or can be, and that DOES create a public safety issue and a significant governmental interest in making sure felons can't do so.

As I said, it seems pretty narrowly considered to create the least intrusive regulation possible.

 

[Dr Grump]

You: if you have nothing to hide, why are you upset about a background checks?
Me: if YOU have nothing to hide, why are you upset about wiretaps?

Answer: You only care about rights being infringed when its a right YOU like.

No, I care about the others' rights being infringed due to the actions of others.

You: I don't want background checks done because it infringes on my rights even if the outcome could be a whole raft of felons running around with weapons.

Me: I don't want people listening in on my conversations because the only negative outcome might be a severe case of ear burn for the person on the other end of the tap.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to reply to the last part of Jillian's 154 post....your practical solution? After all, just saying "it's illegal" ain't gonna stop felons is it?

 

[ReillyT]

And, again, its based on public property.

I am just going to use the wikipedia quote because I am too lazy to pull up the case myself.

Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety.

The opinion of Justice Hughes, adopted by a plurality of the Court, stated as follows: "The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which they ultimately depend. The control of travel on the streets of cities is the most familiar illustration of this recognition of social need."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_v._New_Hampshire

There. Public welfare/safety, not public property was the key.

 

[Shogun]

Still don't think that it means what you think it means.

Otherwise, you are quite right. Lenny Bruce ran afoul of a stupid interpretation of the law (IMO). [That IMO was done with full knowledge by the way]

Does that mean that every interpretation of the law is stupid? Well, almost (I still think some are so obvious that no one questions them) certainly there are people feel that way about nearly every interpretation.

Is the answer to interpret everything as if common sense were a foreign concept? No

Must we just keep trying not to fuck up too badly with the interpretations we make? Yeah, that is pretty much the way it has to be.

What is the alternative? Well, it is too stupid to even really consider.

You can take the Ninth for what you want to take it as. I'll stick with letting it suggest a broad application of individual rights, despite specific enumeration, rather than ignoring it altogether.

if Lenny can run afoul to a stupid interpretation then what makes your interpretation any less stupid to someone who wants to own a gun? To someone who wants to protest outside the alloted protest zone? If the word Cocksucker was once a potential hazard to public safety then how is your rationalized criteria any different? this is why I think the Ninth indicates a broad application of rights.

Look at the wording:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Indeed, EVERYONE has an interpretation of each Amendment in the BOR. I think the Ninth was added to indicate a BROADER range of rights than merely what has been specifically mentioned. This includes the broadest application of the rights that have been enumerated.

Perhaps you can illustrate how you think the Ninth is applicable.

I'll remind you that COMMON SENSE is an opinion statement. This is why we VOTE. I can deal with an election that produces legislation that repeals, or narrows, rights better than falling back on ones individual interpretation of COMMON SENSE. Bruce heard that it was COMMON SENSE that saying cocksucker in public would harm American society. That's not really common or sense, is it? More like an opinion, right?

Again, you may think that broad application of individual liberty is stupid but many kings and others from the ruling classes (you know, that which led us to OUR form of representative democracy) thought giving their SUBJECTS inalienable rights was stupid too. Our government didn't form in a vacuum. OURS is the direct result of the limited liberty found in a monarchy. Opinions on common sense fluxuate depending on perspective; THUS, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights and a Ninth Amendment that indicates the abundance of liberty rather than a limit of such.

 

[Shogun]

Awwwww... shucks. Thanks. *Blushing*

I think the confusion for some of the second amendment folk lies in their misconception that a right can never, under any circumstances, be restricted; that it's almost an on-demand thing. That simply isn't true. The government just needs a really good reason to make minimal intrusions.

The fourth amendment exceptions to the need for a warrant to search property come to mind as well.... exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, plain view and the like.

um, do we BROADLY apply the protection covered by the fourth or do we let any ole excuse work? Do you think that the Bush Wire-tapping issue is condemned or preserved by the fourth amendment?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[jillian]

um, do we BROADLY apply the protection covered by the fourth or do we let any ole excuse work? Do you think that the Bush Wire-tapping issue is condemned or preserved by the fourth amendment?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You know I don't think they have any right to warrantless wire-taps. I think it's a violation of the fourth amendment of the highest order. I think it's EXACTLY what the fourth was supposed to protect against. Does that answer your question?

There is something to be said for the ninth amendment indicating that rights are to be broadly construed. Certainnly, the courts delineating the right of privacy cases like Griswold and Roe thought so. But that doesn't mean that NO infringements can ever occur. They just have to have a VERY good reason that can't be accomplished otherwise.

I think that it was always intended that we have the broadest personal liberties and the least governmental intrustion. But as Reilly said, that doesn't mean common sense is left at the door. And, yes, there will always be bad court decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy.

 

[Shogun]

You know I don't think they have any right to warrantless wire-taps. I think it's a violation of the fourth amendment of the highest order. I think it's EXACTLY what the fourth was supposed to protect against. Does that answer your question?

There is something to be said for the ninth amendment indicating that rights are to be broadly construed. Certainnly, the courts delineating the right of privacy cases like Griswold and Roe thought so. But that doesn't mean that NO infringements can ever occur. They just have to have a VERY good reason that can't be accomplished otherwise.

I think that it was always intended that we have the broadest personal liberties and the least governmental intrustion. But as Reilly said, that doesn't mean common sense is left at the door. And, yes, there will always be bad court decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy.

Indeed, I am awre of your position on the warrentless wiretaps.. BUT, Bushco has, WHAT MANY CONSIDER COMMON SENSE, a reason to suppress the the fourth for PUBLIC SAFETY on par with how a diminished first and second have been argued by your side, yes? I think terrorism and the potential for another 9/11 would make LOTS of people raise their common sense hand, yes? You and I would object to such diminishing the rights guarenteed by the fourth BUT... do you see where i'm going with this?

When you use words like COMMON SENSE you are not really saying anything beyond "my opinion or assessment of the situation". Sure, YOU have an opinion just like the guys who went after Bruce, Ferlinghetti, Larry Flynt etc etc... But, that opinion, labeled common or not, is no reason to diminish the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights. Fist, second OR fourth.


I'll add kelo v New london on that short list of retarded scotus decisions too.

 

[jillian]

Indeed, I am awre of your position on the warrentless wiretaps.. BUT, Bushco has, WHAT MANY CONSIDER COMMON SENSE, a reason to suppress the the fourth for PUBLIC SAFETY on par with how a diminished first and second have been argued by your side, yes? I think terrorism and the potential for another 9/11 would make LOTS of people raise their common sense hand, yes? You and I would object to such diminishing the rights guarenteed by the fourth BUT... do you see where i'm going with this?

When you use words like COMMON SENSE you are not really saying anything beyond "my opinion or assessment of the situation". Sure, YOU have an opinion just like the guys who went after Bruce, Ferlinghetti, Larry Flynt etc etc... But, that opinion, labeled common or not, is no reason to diminish the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights. Fist, second OR fourth.


I'll add kelo v New london on that short list of retarded scotus decisions too.

I disagree re the warrantless wiretaps. The FISA law as originally written was a lesser governmental intrusion which still satisfied the governmental interest. There is no constitutional justification for not getting a warrant as provided under that law.

I understand what you're saying about rights. But rights of an individual have always been found to stop at the nose of the next. No question that Bruce, Flynt, etc, were hounded mercilessly and subjected to a deprivation of their rights. You can extrapolate that to the infringements on the rights of citizens by the HUAC.

As for Kelo. I hate the result. But it really was well-grounded in precedent. Zoning regs have been a staple of governmental rights since Euclid.

 

[ReillyT]

You can take the Ninth for what you want to take it as. I'll stick with letting it suggest a broad application of individual rights, despite specific enumeration, rather than ignoring it altogether.

There is somewhere between ignoring it and your interpretation, but you should already know that.

if Lenny can run afoul to a stupid interpretation then what makes your interpretation any less stupid to someone who wants to own a gun? .

By the normative criteria they use, absolutely nothing.

To someone who wants to protest outside the alloted protest zone? If the word Cocksucker was once a potential hazard to public safety then how is your rationalized criteria any different? this is why I think the Ninth indicates a broad application of rights.

My criteria aren't different in the sense you mean. They are based on my values. They are nomative based. This doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't reasonable and good for society (as I perceive the societal good).

Look at the wording:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Indeed, EVERYONE has an interpretation of each Amendment in the BOR. I think the Ninth was added to indicate a BROADER range of rights than merely what has been specifically mentioned. This includes the broadest application of the rights that have been enumerated.

Perhaps you can illustrate how you think the Ninth is applicable..

To this debate? I don't think it is applicable. I think it says that people have rights in addition to those enumerated, and the fact that some were enumerated doesn't mean that those others don't exist. I don't think it speaks to the interpretation of those rights they did enumerate.

I'll remind you that COMMON SENSE is an opinion statement.

Sure it is - one commonly held.

This is why we VOTE. I can deal with an election that produces legislation that repeals, or narrows, rights better than falling back on ones individual interpretation of COMMON SENSE. Bruce heard that it was COMMON SENSE that saying cocksucker in public would harm American society. That's not really common or sense, is it? More like an opinion, right?

I never said that the common sense was always right, although I don't actually think that would have been termed common sense back then. I think it was a pretty contentious issue even then. Common sense is more like don't blow your hair in the shower. Usually right (certainly in that case), but not always.

Again, you may think that broad application of individual liberty is stupid but many kings and others from the ruling classes (you know, that which led us to OUR form of representative democracy) thought giving their SUBJECTS inalienable rights was stupid too. Our government didn't form in a vacuum. OURS is the direct result of the limited liberty found in a monarchy. Opinions on common sense fluxuate depending on perspective; THUS, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights and a Ninth Amendment that indicates the abundance of liberty rather than a limit of such.

What are you saying? That we might end up thinking that the lines we drew were stupid? No kidding. That is a fucking shocking observation.

People draw lines. Courts draw lines. People and courts are wrong. They revise previous opinions. They see the error of their ways. That is just the way it works. The answer isn't to throw out all of these opinions and judgments and adopt a clearly insane view of permissibility, just because it is the easiest line to draw.

People are fuck-ups. The opinions we hold today will surely be rejected by later generations. That is just the way it goes, and that is the only way it can go.

 

[ReillyT]

There is something to be said for the ninth amendment indicating that rights are to be broadly construed. Certainnly, the courts delineating the right of privacy cases like Griswold and Roe thought so. But that doesn't mean that NO infringements can ever occur. They just have to have a VERY good reason that can't be accomplished otherwise.
.

I forgot that those cases involved the 9th Amendment. I guess I should start espousing Shogun's view after all.

 

[jillian]

I forgot that those cases involved the 9th Amendment. I guess I should start espousing Shogun's view after all.

You were correct in what you said, though. There is a place at which common sense and changing mores meet.

And it's kind of easy to forget about the penumbra emanating from the Bill of Rights in this day of "strict interpretation" and limitations on the rights of the individual.

But this too shall pass... of course, it might take thirty years for it to do so.

 

[Shogun]

I disagree re the warrantless wiretaps. The FISA law as originally written was a lesser governmental intrusion which still satisfied the governmental interest. There is no constitutional justification for not getting a warrant as provided under that law.

I understand what you're saying about rights. But rights of an individual have always been found to stop at the nose of the next. No question that Bruce, Flynt, etc, were hounded mercilessly and subjected to a deprivation of their rights. You can extrapolate that to the infringements on the rights of citizens by the HUAC.

As for Kelo. I hate the result. But it really was well-grounded in precedent. Zoning regs have been a staple of governmental rights since Euclid.

Indeed, you can disagree just like M14 disagrees with background checks. But when someone whips out the COMMON SENSE card.... Bushco gives reasons that his party thinks validates their decisions. He calls it common sense. He didn't walk into the room empty handed, yes?

I keep bringing up specific examples of occasions where people have used the very same logic in validating their interpretation of what is protected rights or not. It's not just a matter of admitting that Bruce was given a hard time. It's a lesson in why common sense may not be so common and, certainly, does not mute rights guaranteed by the BOR. We cannot rationalize our own opinions to a point where our collective rights are bargained away. I'm gld you brought up the fourth.

Owning a gun does stop at the nose. Having a gun doesn't mean someone will die.



I hated that Kelo decision. it was one of those situations where I found myself siding with scalia. I STILL can't get my shower hot enough to burn that dirty feeling off of my skin! I really don't think it was a sound decision. The logic was fucked up. this nation doesn't exist for the sake of municipalities and tax revenue.

 

[ReillyT]

You were correct in what you said, though. There is a place at which common sense and changing mores meet.

And it's kind of easy to forget about the penumbra emanating from the Bill of Rights in this day of "strict interpretation" of powers and limitations on the rights of the individual.

But this too shall pass.

That is some solace. Of course, who said that "in the long run, we'll all be dead?"

 

[Shogun]

You were correct in what you said, though. There is a place at which common sense and changing mores meet.
And it's kind of easy to forget about the penumbra emanating from the Bill of Rights in this day of "strict interpretation" and limitations on the rights of the individual.
But this too shall pass... of course, it might take thirty years for it to do so.

common sense according to whome? Buchco regarding wire taps?

I still love ya, Jillian!

 

[jillian]

That is some solace. Of course, who said that in the long run, we'll all be dead?

Yeah... I know. See my edit.

And now I'm off to home!

Was a good convo everyone. I enjoyed this one.

Laterz.

 

[jillian]

common sense according to whome? Buchco regarding wire taps?

I still love ya, Jillian!

Course ya do!

 

[ReillyT]

common sense according to whome? Buchco regarding wire taps?

I still love ya, Jillian!

I see where you are coming from Shogun. I just think that it is always going to messy at the margins. I think this is unavoidable and not necessarily a bad thing.

I think that I shall bail too. Goodnight (I'm in England) Shogun. Talk to you later.

 

[Ninja]

This is why there needs to be a system in place, besides people thinking big evil guns are scary, to determine which guns prompt a background check. Something based on logic and actual potential societal harm than gun hatred. something, like say, an ATF census report on the previous decades criminally used weapons.

The black rifle guys would love that. The SKS guys would dislike it. The Lorcin guys would kill themselves.

 

[Shogun]

My criteria aren't different in the sense you mean. They are based on my values. They are nomative based. This doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't reasonable and good for society (as I perceive the societal good).


Protection from YOUR values is precisely why we have a bill of rights in the first place, no? Indeed, restricting nudity, profanity and anything else according to opinion may not be so unreasonable to some, eh? GOOD for society even! Just think what gay hating christians can do by insisting that their VALUES are reasonable and good for society!



To this debate? I don't think it is applicable. I think it says that people have rights in addition to those enumerated, and the fact that some were enumerated doesn't mean that those others don't exist. I don't think it speaks to the interpretation of those rights they did enumerate.

ehh.. you'll come around..


Sure it is - one commonly held.

hehehe... do you have a source that proves how common it is? I call MY source a vote. What do you call yours when you come to these conclusions?

opinions and assholes, buddy.


I never said that the common sense was always right, although I don't actually think that would have been termed common sense back then. I think it was a pretty contentious issue even then. Common sense is more like don't blow your hair in the shower. Usually right (certainly in that case), but not always.


and not always as "common" as claimed. See the Buscho v Fourth Amendment above.



What are you saying? That we might end up thinking that the lines we drew were stupid? No kidding. That is a fucking shocking observation.


No, I don't care that you can see it for what it was 50 years AFTER the fact.. I care about your OPINION repeating the same bullshit that hounded Bruce and others on the basis that you rationalize your opinion as more common that it isn't. Again, YOUR argument is NO DIFFERENT that those used to marginalize the rights of Bruce and others. It's the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. public safety and common sense. The exact same.

"You can't win a case based on 'cocksucker.'


People draw lines. Courts draw lines. People and courts are wrong. They revise previous opinions. They see the error of their ways. That is just the way it works. The answer isn't to throw out all of these opinions and judgments and adopt a clearly insane view of permissibility, just because it is the easiest line to draw.


What the hell are you even talking about? "answer isn't" and "clearly insane" are opinions. When that grass roots effort of yours get's a rollin' then maybe such opinions will be worth something. Go vote rather than claim something is as common as it is in your opinions. Rationalizing some lame "opps, oh well" approach to limiting basic rights is what is insane.



People are fuck-ups. The opinions we hold today will surely be rejected by later generations. That is just the way it goes, and that is the only way it can go.


That's a pretty dumb statement but I think i'll pass on letting your hindsight memory as a fuckup with an opinion limit the broad application of the bill of right, thanks. Yes, there IS another way: let the rights indicated by the bill of rights breath beyond the foul stench of your opinion promoted as common sense.