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

[M14 Shooter]

Me? I think all the amendments should be enforced. The only question on the 2nd for me, is what is meant in the context 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.

Miller is pretty clear on that.

 

[Shogun]

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.

I know it wasn't a red herring.. That's why I have no problem assimilating it into the conversation.

I'm glad your capacity for free speech is so tolorant.. but, just as you have OPINIONS about what criteria should qualify someone to own a gun (background checks, limit on gun types etc) so, too, did Lenny Bruce find out what OPINIONS were held about what constitutes obscenity and limited free speech.

No Joke! 37 Years After Death Lenny Bruce Receives Pardon
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DF1E3FF937A15751C1A9659C8B63
Lenny Bruce, the potty-mouthed wit who turned stand-up comedy into social commentary, was posthumously pardoned yesterday by Gov. George E. Pataki, 39 years after being convicted of obscenity for using bad words in a Greenwich Village nightclub act.

I suggest this book to anyone interested in seeing what happens when we let opinions ABOUT qualifications for the bill of rights hinder it's applicable coverage. Great Bruce recordings.. Good read.

 

[jillian]

Personally, I think most of the obscenity stuff is far too subjective. In the wrong hands, the whole "having no redeeming social value" standard is pretty dangerous.

But by the same token, having a gun in the hands of a person who has already been adjudicated dangerous, is just stupid. And saying that background checks somehow violate the 2nd amendment makes no sense to me.

oh.. and I remembered when Pataki pardoned Lenny Bruce. He wasn't a bad governor for a repub.

 

[ReillyT]

I know it wasn't a red herring.. That's why I have no problem assimilating it into the conversation.

I'm glad your capacity for free speech is so tolorant.. but, just as you have OPINIONS about what criteria should qualify someone to own a gun (background checks, limit on gun types etc) so, too, did Lenny Bruce find out what OPINIONS were held about what constitutes obscenity and limited free speech.

No Joke! 37 Years After Death Lenny Bruce Receives Pardon
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DF1E3FF937A15751C1A9659C8B63
Lenny Bruce, the potty-mouthed wit who turned stand-up comedy into social commentary, was posthumously pardoned yesterday by Gov. George E. Pataki, 39 years after being convicted of obscenity for using bad words in a Greenwich Village nightclub act.

I suggest this book to anyone interested in seeing what happens when we let opinions ABOUT qualifications for the bill of rights hinder it's applicable coverage. Great Bruce recordings.. Good read.

Is your position that laws should only be based on absolutes because any other position on the "slippery slope" requires a invalid normative judgment?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But by the same token, having a gun in the hands of a person who has already been adjudicated dangerous, is just stupid.

That's why its illegal.
Note that its only been illegal for the last 40 years.

And saying that background checks somehow violate the 2nd amendment makes no sense to me.

Background checks are a precondition placed on the exercise of the right to arms that is not inherent to the right to arms -- they are a form of prior restraint. As such, they are an infringement.
The 2nd states that the right shall not be infringed.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

Okay. That was a little bit harsh and illogical. I was wrong. A more approprite term would be “seemingly cowardly”.

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, doesn’t include libel or slander or yelling fire in a thrater or 'fighting words', and as such, the 1st amendment doesn't protect those things.

Why not. If the 2nd amendment right to bear arms does not have any limits and, therefore, you should be allowed to onw guns without limits, then if the 1st amendment right to practice your religion does not have any limits you should be allowed to practice your religion without limits.

Don’t you see the inconsistency in your reasoning. Would you leave the 1st amendment alone but restrict religious practices yet leave the 2nd amendment alone but oppose any restriction to gun ownership?

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.

No. I am consistent. I think that for the sake of constitutionality, there should be reasonable limits set legally/constitutionally to the Bill of Rights.

 

[mattskramer]

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

Do I need to preface my posts for you and state that this is persuant to amending the constitutation. I already expained, in a previous post in this thread, tht I thouhgt that it was understood that my ideas may warrant amending the constitution.

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.

Thanks. Therefore I sould be free to burn dogs and not pay taxes if it runs contrary to my religious instruction.

 

[jillian]

That's why its illegal.
Note that its only been illegal for the last 40 years.

Right. Which is exactly why background checks are necessary

Background checks are a precondition placed on the exercise of the right to arms that is not inherent to the right to arms -- they are a form of prior restraint. As such, they are an infringement.
The 2nd states that the right shall not be infringed.

It's not being infringed if the only people kept from exercising the right are those for whom it is already illegal.

Again, your reasoning is circuitous.

 

[Shogun]

Is your position that laws should only be based on absolutes because any other position on the "slippery slope" requires a invalid normative judgment?

My position is that every right guaranteed by the Constitution is equally worth liberal application until such right is repealed through legislation. We all have a range of opinions. Those opinions don't mean shit unless they collect enough momentum to repeal the rights granted by our Constitution. I think the Ninth Amendment is in place to indicate the BROAD application of liberty (constitutionally granted rights) over the narrow manipulation of opinions about each right. Again, we can extrapolate this down to asking if human sacrifice is covered by the first amendment. If the second amendment gives citizens the right to carry personal nukes. However, I believe the Ninth Amendment indicates that personal liberty should not be infringed for the sake of litigious interpretations of the numerated rights.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


did that answer your question or are you looking for more of a "yes, they can both trip down a slippery slope" type of answer?


Keep in mind.. I'm not saying that there should be no background checks. I just think that there should be a basis for such besides hating guns and trying to get them banned and, if not that, making gun owners jump through hoops to keep their guns. This is why I suggested the ATF publish spacific crime stats every census year and use that list to determine what guns are bing used in crime to qualify a background check instead of merely hating guns. I'd let uncle bob have automatic weapons. Uncle bob isnt' robbing liquer stores with an ak-47.

 

[jillian]

Do I need to preface my posts for you and state that this is persuant to amending the constitutation. I already expained, in a previous post in this thread, tht I thouhgt that it was understood that my ideas may warrant amending the constitution.

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.

Thanks. Therefore I sould be free to burn dogs and not pay taxes if it runs contrary to my religious instruction.[/QUOTE]

Again, you seem to be missing the point. And we weren't talking about amending the constitution. We were talking about enforcement of its provisions as it exists. If you choose to change the perameters, then, yes, you need to preface your thoughts by saying so.

 

[ReillyT]

Background checks are a precondition placed on the exercise of the right to arms that is not inherent to the right to arms -- they are a form of prior restraint. As such, they are an infringement.
The 2nd states that the right shall not be infringed.

There are similar forms of restraint on the 1st Amendment. Consider a group that wants to hold a rally in the town square. They may be permitted to do it, but they may also need a permit (sometimes for reasons of personal safety and crowd management). These are just common sense limitations. A right delayed is not always a right denied.

 

[mattskramer]

There are similar forms of restraint on the 1st Amendment. Consider a group that wants to hold a rally in the town square. They may be permitted to do it, but they may also need a permit (sometimes for reasons of personal safety and crowd management). These are just common sense limitations. A right delayed is not always a right denied.

Wait just a darn minute! That is unconstitutional. There is no limit to free speech. The Bill of Rights does not say that a permit is required in order for someone to speak. (Sarcasm intended)

----

Excellent point and I think that I can explain the inconsistency very easily.
I want a gun. Bill of Rights says that I can get a gun with no strings attached.
I want to lead a peaceful protest march. Bill of Rights says that I have freedom of assembly and freedon of speech with no strings attached. I need a permit.
Hmmmm

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right. Which is exactly why background checks are necessary

However necessary you think they may be, they still create an infringement.

It's not being infringed if the only people kept from exercising the right are those for whom it is already illegal.

Except that everyone has to undergo a background check, and therefore everyone has the same precondition laid upon the exercise of their right.
You'd be right if only felons had to undergo a background check, but that's not the case.

 

[jillian]

However necessary you think they may be, they still create an infringement.


Except that everyone has to undergo a background check, and therefore everyone has the same precondition laid upon the exercise of their right.
You'd be right if only felons had to undergo a background check, but that's not the case.

And how do you expect to keep weapons out of their hands WITHOUT checking in advance? I disagree with you, but if you have a responsible resolution, I'm happy to hear it.

 

[ReillyT]

My position is that every right guaranteed by the Constitution is equally worth liberal application until such right is repealed through legislation. We all have a range of opinions. Those opinions don't mean shit unless they collect enough momentum to repeal the rights granted by our Constitution. I think the Ninth Amendment is in place to indicate the BROAD application of liberty (constitutionally granted rights) over the narrow manipulation of opinions about each right. Again, we can extrapolate this down to asking if human sacrifice is covered by the first amendment. If the second amendment gives citizens the right to carry personal nukes. However, I believe the Ninth Amendment indicates that personal liberty should not be infringed for the sake of litigious interpretations of the numerated rights.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


did that answer your question or are you looking for more of a "yes, they can both trip down a slippery slope" type of answer?

Maybe I was looking for a "they can both trip down a slippery slope" argument. I am not sure. I don't think I precisely understand what this means.

Do you really think that every right should receive the most liberal application, or just a liberal application? The "most liberal application" position is just kind of stupid if you think about the potential consequences. On the other hand, a "liberal, but not liberal to the maximum extent" position means that you draw lines, you just draw them at a different point than others. Once you begin drawing lines, it becomes a normative question where to stop - there is not necessarily a "right" place.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are similar forms of restraint on the 1st Amendment. Consider a group that wants to hold a rally in the town square. They may be permitted to do it, but they may also need a permit (sometimes for reasons of personal safety and crowd management).

These are not restrictions based on the exercise of the right, but because the exercise of the right involves public property. You have an inherent right to tell eveyone how much you hate GWB, but you dont have an inherent right to do it while standing in the middle of the road.

If you'd like to make a 2nd amendment parallel to this, go ahead.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And how do you expect to keep weapons out of their hands WITHOUT checking in advance?

You're presuming that because it is illegal for felons to own guns, it is necessary to violate the rights of non-felons to try to keep the felons from buying guns. You're trying to pre-empt crime, and you're doing it with a form of prior restraint.

In a free society, you cannot pre-empt crime without infringing people's rights. In this case, the right in question cannot be infringed.

Making guns illegal for felons to own means you can arrest felons that have guns. It does NOT mean you can infringe on the rights of non-felons in an attempt to keep felons from getting guns.

 

[ReillyT]

These are not restrictions based on the exercise of the right, but because the exercise of the right involves public property. You have an inherent right to tell eveyone how much you hate GWB, but you dont have an inherent right to do it while standing in the middle of the road.

If you'd like to make a 2nd amendment parallel to this, go ahead.

The first amendment is meant to protect public speech on public property (and we don't have to talk about a road - how about in a park or in front of city hall or on a sidewalk?). The requirement of a permit is obviously a minor restriction on this right, as it means that such gatherings may require a day or two until the permit is granted before they can be held. However, large rallies and gatherings can pose a public safety risk, even if they're aren't controversial. Hence the reasonable restriction.

Is it really that hard to understand the analogous background check rationale?

 

[ReillyT]

You have an inherent right to tell eveyone how much you hate GWB, but you dont have an inherent right to do it while standing in the middle of the road.

Exactly, because this would pose a public danger (let's think a little about guns here). However, I do have that right on the sidewalk.

 

[Shogun]

some might say that allowing a population freedom itself is a stupid thing too if one considers the consequences.


The purpose of liberal application, and the presence of the Ninth Amendment, indicates to me that the liberty preserved by the constitution was intended to be broadly defined. Look at the language of the Ninth. They SPECIFICALLY tell us that enumerated rights specifically mentioned are not the sum total of our American rights. Thus, the first and second amendments, though enumerated and specifically mentioned in the bill of rights, are not limited in their application based on their specific mention. I think that this is apparent when we ALL start throwing around opinions about who and what does or does not qualify for protection under the Bill of Rights. We have a process to repeal Amendments. Opinions are not legislation. Opinions alone did not repeal prohibition. YOU may have your OPINION about what is or isn't stupid. Like I said, SOME people might say that allowing blanket freedoms at all would be stupid considering the consequences. It's one more out of many Opinions on the collected pile.