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

[jillian]

Because listening in on my private conversations is a lot different from trying to find out if some convicted murderer wants a gun.

Warrantless searches are also prohibited by the Fourt Amendment. Background checks aren't. Nor has the second ever been interpreted in any way that says they are.

Ask him if he's bothered by the warrantless searches or by the denial of habeus corpus for the people in Gitmo. Somehow I think he won't be such a "strict constructionist" then.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because listening in on my private conversations is a lot different from trying to find out if some convicted murderer wants a gun.

You have nothing to hide -- why do you care?
Or is the 4th amendment a sacred cow, while the 2nd can be ignored?

Great comparison

I'm sorry -- is a right delayed NOT a right denied?

 

[Dr Grump]

Warrantless searches are also prohibited by the Fourt Amendment. Background checks aren't. Nor has the second ever been interpreted in any way that says they are.

Ask him if he's bothered by the warrantless searches or by the denial of habeus corpus for the people in Gitmo. Somehow I think he won't be such a "strict constructionist" then.

B-b-b--but they are not on US soil! Oh, wait a minute, they are!

 

[Dr Grump]

You have nothing to hide -- why do you care?
Or is the 4th amendment a sacred cow, while the 2nd can be ignored?


I'm sorry -- is a right delayed NOT a right denied?

Who says I have nothing to hide? The things I have to hide may not be illegal things, just things I do not want people to know. A felon owning a gun is definitely illegal.

Depends on the right...

 

[jillian]

B-b-b--but they are not on US soil! Oh, wait a minute, they are!

Yep.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Warrantless searches are also prohibited by the Fourt Amendment. Background checks aren't.

Explain how a precondition to the exercise of the right to arms that is not inherent to the exercise of the right to arms does not infringe on the right to arms.
Then explain how the 2nd does not prohibit infringements on the right to arms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

B-b-b--but they are not on US soil! Oh, wait a minute, they are!

They are not US citizens, nor legal immigrants , they were captured IN a war against the US in a foreign Country. Our Civilian legal system has very limited application to them. Whether on US soil or not. BUT they are in fact still allowed basic legal protections and have had their cases heard as high as the Supreme Court. So much for that argument.

 

[jillian]

You have nothing to hide -- why do you care?
Or is the 4th amendment a sacred cow, while the 2nd can be ignored?


I'm sorry -- is a right delayed NOT a right denied?

The second has never been interpreted in any way that prohibits background checks. And, frankly, I really don't see them as any different from the time, place and manner restrictions on the 1st amendment.

But why do you whine about the 2nd but have no problem with what's been done to the 4th over the last 7 years?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who says I have nothing to hide?

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second has never been interpreted in any way that prohibits background checks.

The second has never been interpreted in any way that allows background checks. Your point?

And, frankly, I really don't see them as any different from the time, place and manner restrictions on the 1st amendment.

Explain how they are the same.

Why do you whine about the 4th but have no problem with what's been done to the 2nd over the last 70 years?

 

[Shogun]

As you say, gun ownership is a right. Driving is a privalege. That aside, it is my understanding that if you screw up too many times, you can get your driver’s license suspended or revoked. That does not prevent people from physically driving, but if you are caught and identified driving without a licences, you will probably wind up in more trouble.

Likewise, If I rob a bank with a gun I am denied be able to own one because i'd be a felon. Uncle bob who accidentally shoots someone isn't a felon. A felon with a gun gets in more legal trouble than if he were caught without. what is your point again?

 

[Shogun]

And besides, there are reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech, (e.g., obscenity, commercial speech, even political speech and requiring permits for certain gatherings)... no different for guns.

oh jillian.. it's that term "REASONABLE" that seems to volley back and forth depending on whose opinion of "REASONABLE" we go by, yes? OBSCENITY? I'd have thought you'd lay off that first amendment tangent since OBSCENITY has been argued from Ferlinghetti up to Reuben Sturman. People have opinions for and against what constitutes OBSCENE. Do you really want to put your eggs in that basket? Was it wrong to ban city lights books in san fran? Are poems about angel-haired gay men obscene to YOU? Do out-of-the-way protest zones sit well with you? Can you give me this same logic while remembering the shit Lenny Bruce went through for telling jokes? Fred Phelp's clan just lost a case worth millions over a first amendment issue that , Id bet anything, goes to the supreme court and gets overturned because OPINIONS about speech do not trump the freedom thereof. I don't like the nazi message but I'm damn sure going to make sure that nazi's can hold a parade in my town (happened this summer as a matter of fact) rather than infringe on THEIR rights under the constitution.

Ironically, my town and almost anyone who is familair with Phelps, vehemently disagree with their messages. No new nazis are produced. Phelps's church is mainly just his own family. Limiting THEIR first amendment rights are not worth the broadly applicable precedence it sets just because I don't like the message. Likewise, if we enjoy the broad application of the first then we MUST give the same consideration to the second without trying to rationalize limitations. We all have opinons. These basic rights keep my opinions from marginalizing your liberty; and likewise.

 

[mattskramer]

Okay. I’m still waiting for M14 Shooter to reply to my question concerning the 1st amendment.

Since the 2nd amendment says a well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed things such as background checks, without changing this amendment, would be unconstitutional. Therefore there should be no restrictions unless this amendment gets changed.

Following that logic, since the 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… laws requiring me to do things that or prohibit me from doing things that run contrary to my religious practice would be unconstitutional. Therefore there should be no law or rule requiring me to pay taxes if in so doing, it prohibits me from exercizing my religion. Likewise, there should be no law agaisnt sacrificing live puppies if it is practiced by my religion.

Question 1:

If my religion calls on me to sacrifice live puppies and not pay taxes that go to military build up, is it constitutional for me to sacrifice live puppies and not pay taxes that go to military buildup?

Follow-up Questions to Question 1:

A:If not, then what is the logical difference?

B:If so, does it stand in accordance with your reasoning about the Bill of Rights, than should be constitutionally free to do so?
If not, then what is the difference - why not?

Question 3: Should the 1st amendment be amended?

Your comment please.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. I’m still waiting for M14 Shooter to reply to my question concerning the 1st amendment.

Red herring. No need to reply. This is, after all a 2nd amendment discussion.

But, if you DO want to consider the 1st amendment issue, consider how the concept of 'prior restraint' might be applied to the right to arms.

 

[Shogun]

stop being a *****, M14. Answer the mans' questions. If you are as convicted about the second as you sound then you should have no problem with his questions. If you duck and dodge it's going to be REAL obvious.

 

[mattskramer]

Red herring. No need to reply. This is, after all a 2nd amendment discussion.

But, if you DO want to consider the 1st amendment issue, consider how the concept of 'prior restraint' might be applied to the right to arms.

Thanks. I have pretty well proven you to be inconstitent and intellectually dishonest when it comes to the Bill of Rights. You hold the 2nd amendment to one standard but will not admit to whether or not you would hold the 1st andmedment to the same standard. My questions were very simple and straight forward but you refuse to answer them. Until you stop ducking and dodging and being a coward, I rest my case.

On the other hand, I’d be happy to answer any question that anyone has - allegedly red herring or not.

 

[jillian]

oh jillian.. it's that term "REASONABLE" that seems to volley back and forth depending on whose opinion of "REASONABLE" we go by, yes? OBSCENITY? I'd have thought you'd lay off that first amendment tangent since OBSCENITY has been argued from Ferlinghetti up to Reuben Sturman. People have opinions for and against what constitutes OBSCENE. Do you really want to put your eggs in that basket? Was it wrong to ban city lights books in san fran? Are poems about angel-haired gay men obscene to YOU? Do out-of-the-way protest zones sit well with you? Can you give me this same logic while remembering the shit Lenny Bruce went through for telling jokes? Fred Phelp's clan just lost a case worth millions over a first amendment issue that , Id bet anything, goes to the supreme court and gets overturned because OPINIONS about speech do not trump the freedom thereof. I don't like the nazi message but I'm damn sure going to make sure that nazi's can hold a parade in my town (happened this summer as a matter of fact) rather than infringe on THEIR rights under the constitution.

Ironically, my town and almost anyone who is familair with Phelps, vehemently disagree with their messages. No new nazis are produced. Phelps's church is mainly just his own family. Limiting THEIR first amendment rights are not worth the broadly applicable precedence it sets just because I don't like the message. Likewise, if we enjoy the broad application of the first then we MUST give the same consideration to the second without trying to rationalize limitations. We all have opinons. These basic rights keep my opinions from marginalizing your liberty; and likewise.

I didn't raise the first amendment to argue the definition of reasonableness. I'd wager my tolerance for what's reasonable far exceeds most. I raised the issue of reasonable restrictions because for me it is prima facie reasonable to ID people buying a gun to make sure they aren't felons; don't have any domestic abuse charges or orders of protection against them; or have been found to be a danger to themselves or others, etc. I wasn't talking about anything beyond that.

And there is a segment of people who think they should be able to have a gun, no questions asked. And we can find out later if they're felons or have a history of criminal insanity.

On the issue of speech, we can debate that on another thread. Like I said, it wasn't a red-herring or in any way unrelated to the second amendment issue for the limited purpose for which I raised it.

 

[mattskramer]

But, if you DO want to consider the 1st amendment issue, consider how the concept of 'prior restraint' might be applied to the right to arms.

Oh. I’m okay with prior restraint. I have nothing to hide. I’m opposed to the 5th amendment. It is a cop-out for cowards, criminals, or overly sesnitive people in my opinion. Let the govenrment check me out and eavesdrop. I have nothing to hide but government agents might not like what they see. I don’t break the law but I like some things that the “religious right” might oppose. I’m not embarrassed or ashamed. While they are at it, how about having them give me a colonoscopy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks. I have pretty well proven you to be inconstitent and intellectually dishonest when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

Given that I havent stated any of my positions regarding any of the other rights protected by the bill of rights, your statement here doesn't have a leg to stand on.

We all know that the 1st amendment doesnt cover any and everything you might want to say, or any and every religious practice you might like to try. "Free speech" for instance, doesnt include libel or slander oyr yelling fire in a thrater or 'fighting words', and as such, the 1st amendment doesn't protect those things.

Now, if you'd like to try to describe to me the 2nd amendment equivelant to libel or slander or yelling fire in a thrater or 'fighting words'.I'd be happy to entertain your thoughts.

 

[jillian]

Oh. I’m okay with prior restraint. I have nothing to hide. I’m opposed to the 5th amendment. It is a cop-out for cowards, criminals, or overly sesnitive people in my opinion. Let the govenrment check me out and eavesdrop. I have nothing to hide but government agents might not like what they see. I don’t break the law but I like some things that the “religious right” might oppose. I’m not embarrassed or ashamed. While they are at it, how about having them give me a colonoscopy.

So they can violate the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments because they don't trouble you?

Me? I think all the amendments should be enforced. The only question on the 2nd for me, is what is the proper interpretation of a well-ordered militia, which I think clearly was contemplated by the founders and also must be read in the context of other constitutional provisions.