Guns, Speech and Group Punishment

David · Feb 11, 2013

tecoyah said:
According to your interpretation, this is likely true.
According to my interpretation it is not.

I suggest we use an arbiter to moderate the disagreement....perhaps a court of some kind, preferably a supreme one.

The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

They will likely uphold this as well.

Sure and they've also upheld laws saying people with a clean record and training can walk into any public place (other then gov't property) armed with whatever they can carry in a holster. Remember, people once owned warships and small armies (a few people still own their own armies), the 2nd Amendment says arms instead of guns for a reason. Restrictions are fine but the moment you start banning stuff you run into legal and political issues.

tecoyah · Feb 12, 2013

David said:
Sure and they've also upheld laws saying people with a clean record and training can walk into any public place (other then gov't property) armed with whatever they can carry in a holster. Remember, people once owned warships and small armies (a few people still own their own armies), the 2nd Amendment says arms instead of guns for a reason. Restrictions are fine but the moment you start banning stuff you run into legal and political issues.

Thing is, the laws you refer to will be in place regardless of what is proposed, and the right to bear arms is not in danger, in any way, of being removed. I agree Guns and Arms are not the same thing and though the term Gun may have existed in some form when the constitution was penned using the language to confuse this issue does not make it more clear...just as pretending the term assault weapon does not exist seems a rather silly way to defend the second.
If by chance this proposed legislation seemed an actual attack on Constitutional rights I would certainly have a different opinion as I firmly believe that we the people are the primary defenders of our republic. Being a gun owner, I truly value and appreciate my right to own a weapon...as well as yours. I simply do not see the need for anyone outside the military to have access to THIS type of weapon, as the negative far outweighs any possible positive.

David · Feb 12, 2013

tecoyah said:
though the term Gun may have existed in some form when the constitution was penned using the language to confuse this issue does not make it more clear

In some form? We're talking about the start of the Industrial Revolution here, not the High Middle Age. They had everything but automatics when the 2nd Amendment was written.

tecoyah · Feb 12, 2013

David said:
In some form? We're talking about the start of the Industrial Revolution here, not the High Middle Age. They had everything but automatics when the 2nd Amendment was written.

The 2nd amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.
The origin of the English word gun is presently considered to derive from the name given to a particular historical weapon. Domina Gunilda was the name given to a remarkably large ballista, a mechanical bolt throwing weapon of enormous size, mounted at Windsor Castle during the 14C. This name in turn may have derived from the Old Norse woman's proper name Gunnhildr which combines two Norse words referring to battle.[1] In any case the term gonne or gunne was applied to early hand-held firearms by the late 14C. or early 15C.

As stated the term existed in some form when the 2nd was penned...but the term Arms was more common as far as I can tell. Also musket, pistol, and others.

Polydectes · Feb 12, 2013

David said:
Sure and they've also upheld laws saying people with a clean record and training can walk into any public place (other then gov't property) armed with whatever they can carry in a holster. Remember, people once owned warships and small armies (a few people still own their own armies), the 2nd Amendment says arms instead of guns for a reason. Restrictions are fine but the moment you start banning stuff you run into legal and political issues.

The language in the second amendment is very clear. Its to protect military type weapons, or combat weapons owned by the people. Of course the background checks currently in place are there to regulate the ownership of such weaponry. It seems the only goal in this proposal is to weaken the power of the people. The gov pathetically, out proudly dropped the ball on this in a scandal called fast and furious. The failure that has resulted in the deaths of some people, no doubt, makes the current administration completely inept and unqualified to even speak about it.

Their failure to prosecute the guilty makes the case better that it is about pulling teeth.

Brooks · Feb 18, 2013

tecoyah said:
a. I am not for placing limits on rational gun ownership.

b. This corrupts the analogy.
Yelling in a theater is not forbidden, yelling a particular word however is.

c. Owning a gun is not illegal, owning a gun developed for the express purpose of killing humans would be.

a. Does "rational gun ownership" mean owning a gun rationally or owning a rational gun (kidding).
Back to amorphous, subjectve phrases: If we can't come up with an objective definition of "rational gun ownership", and I'm sure we can't, it makes for a tough discussion.

b. True. Responsible gun users are not being challenged here, a particular type of user is.
Yelling "hidy-ho" in a theater is about as dangerous as you or me owning a 15 round clip assault rifle.
Taking that rifle away from you is like banning the word "hidy-ho" from being shouted in a theater. Neither situation presented a danger in the first place.
SOME shouted words are a danger in theaters and SOME gun users are a danger in society. Do we ban all words as we are banning all owners?

c. You point out the problem I have with the phrase "assault weapon" in the first place. A necktie, if used in the proper way, is an assault weapon, as is a butter knife.
EVERY firearm can kill a human. Why any distinction? I don't understand the relevance of "developed".

tecoyah · Feb 18, 2013

Brooks said:
a. Does "rational gun ownership" mean owning a gun rationally or owning a rational gun (kidding).
Back to amorphous, subjectve phrases: If we can't come up with an objective definition of "rational gun ownership", and I'm sure we can't, it makes for a tough discussion.

b. True. Responsible gun users are not being challenged here, a particular type of user is.
Yelling "hidy-ho" in a theater is about as dangerous as you or me owning a 15 round clip assault rifle.
Taking that rifle away from you is like banning the word "hidy-ho" from being shouted in a theater. Neither situation presented a danger in the first place.
SOME shouted words are a danger in theaters and SOME gun users are a danger in society. Do we ban all words as we are banning all owners?

c. You point out the problem I have with the phrase "assault weapon" in the first place. A necktie, if used in the proper way, is an assault weapon, as is a butter knife.
EVERY firearm can kill a human. Why any distinction? I don't understand the relevance of "developed".

As far as I can reason it, the possible attempt to remove or limit this type of gun is much the same as the limitation in place in the yelling fire analogy.
There are no limits placed on being a jerk and yelling in a theater, though you would likely piss a few folks off. If you yell fire however, there is a pretty good chance someone will get hurt so we try to prevent it.
There are no limits being suggested, hinted at, or remotely considered to stop people from having a gun (Yelling in a theater). There does seem to be an attempt to limit the ability to cause extreme damage by removing what seems a major opportunity to do so.

In other words...you have the right to yell all you want.

You do not have the right to cause a panicked stampede.

You have the right to own a gun.

You do not have the right to shoot 30 people a minute.

Stonewall · Feb 18, 2013

tecoyah said:
As far as I can reason it, the possible attempt to remove or limit this type of gun is much the same as the limitation in place in the yelling fire analogy.
There are no limits placed on being a jerk and yelling in a theater, though you would likely piss a few folks off. If you yell fire however, there is a pretty good chance someone will get hurt so we try to prevent it.
There are no limits being suggested, hinted at, or remotely considered to stop people from having a gun (Yelling in a theater). There does seem to be an attempt to limit the ability to cause extreme damage by removing what seems a major opportunity to do so.

In other words...you have the right to yell all you want.

You do not have the right to cause a panicked stampede.

You have the right to own a gun.

You do not have the right to shoot 30 people a minute.

Feel better now?

tecoyah · Feb 18, 2013

Stonewall said:
Feel better now?

Yes....I suppose I do. Generally when I make a valuable and well thought out post that adds to the concept of this community forum I usually do.