Constitutional Rights

[Cryozombie]

So, let's say .....

When the President of the United States, sets up a chain-link, fenced in area four blocks away from a location where he is about to give a speech, and tells those who wish to peaceably assemble and hold up signs that oppose his position that they may exercise their First Amendment Rights of Freedom of speech "Over There" ... that would be a direct, proportional infringement on not respecting our liberties and freedoms of Free Speech, and our freedoms to persue life, liberty and happiness..

Is it? I've been to a couple of these rallys now, and its not, as you describe here, people peaceably holding up signs, they are screaming and shouting and chanting and swearing... which would be disruptive to the speech. So saying "you can do it, but over there" is, IMO a fair compromise.

Imagine you were trying to talk to a group of people with a message you thought was important and it went like this:

So, let's say ....

SHUTUP YOU SUCK, OFF OF MARTIALTALK NOW!

When the President of the United States, sets up a chain-link, fenced in area four blocks away from a location where he is about to give a speech,

BOOOOO!

WHAT DO WE WANT?
NO MORE MICHAELEDWARD!
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
NOW!

and tells those who wish to peaceably assemble and hold up signs that oppose his position that they may exercise their First Amendment Rights of Freedom of speech "Over There" ...

NO MICHAELEDWARD!
NO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS
PEACE PEACE PEACE!

that would be a direct, proportional infringement on not respecting our liberties and freedoms of Free Speech, and our freedoms to persue life, liberty and happiness..

RAH RAH RAH!


Admit it, it's obnoxious, stupid, and disruptive. There's no reason IMO, a compromise in that situation should be considered an infringement on Freedom of speech. You want to argue about infringement, Id be happy to discuss the tactics they used to arrest people at the Rally in DC in september, where my Nephew was arrested on Felony charges of carring an Incindiary Device because he had a bag of incence sticks.

But thats all off topic.

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh and Mike,

Please don't take those comments personally, they are just direct examples of the kinds of things I have heard at the rallys and I simply substitued your name since I was using your quote as an example.

 

[Cruentus]

And, lastly, your descriptions of '2 camps' is hardly objective. The biases in your language are obvious to someone familiar with our society. Hell, you even use quotes around the title of a Hillary Clinton book. And then proceed to call any who might fit in that camp a *****. You may call it "extreme pacificsm", but you are not describing Ghandi. You are using the phrase derogatorily.

I won't address the issue of free speech as I couldn't have done it better the CryoZombie. But, I see nothing wrong with talking about other civil liberties, and have in the past. Youu can search and find threads in which I was extremely critical of the Patrior Act, for example. As to other "gun folks," I already explained why some are 1 issue voters. You may think that the position of a 1 issue voter is stupid. I don't care, and can't even defend the position because I am not a 1 issue voter myself.

And your attack on my objectivity is plain off base. I didn't call anyone a *****. Some people claim to be "extreme pacifists" and are proud of it. I think that some people fall in one extreme category, some in the other, and most in between somewhere. I happen to lean towards being an individualist.

But what I don't understand is why some people (I have gotten this more then once outside of this thread) who lean towards what I would call collectivism don't simply defend their position. Instead, it is claims that I have miscategorized the argument somehow. If that is the case, enlighten all of us.

 

[michaeledward]

Paul, this is where bias meets the road.

You may believe your descriptions were 'objective', from my point of view they were not objective, at all. Your 'individualist' beliefs are loud and clear in your description.

Now, no doubt, my bias toward socialism might make my interpretation of your language a bit hyper sensative.

But, you aren't trying to be objective. You are drawing conclusions, as can be seen in the last sentence of your post.

By trying to regulate according to a "greater good," 'good' becomes subjective and can lead us to oppression and tyranny

Objectivity would not spell out a conclusion. Objectivity would provide us with an array of possible outcomes, where you present only one outcome, and it is an outcome that, you yourself, do not claim to be certain; but only that it "can lead us", not that it manifestly "does lead us".

And certainly, if it spelled out a conclusion on one side of the arguement, it would do so on the other side as well. What is the conclusion of unrestrained "Individualist" tendancies? Chaos? Anarchy? 200,000 small arms deaths per year?



Who was it who said ... 'We must all stand together, or we shall assuredly all hang seperately"?

 

[Cruentus]

Paul, this is where bias meets the road.

You may believe your descriptions were 'objective', from my point of view they were not objective, at all. Your 'individualist' beliefs are loud and clear in your description.

Now, no doubt, my bias toward socialism might make my interpretation of your language a bit hyper sensative.

But, you aren't trying to be objective. You are drawing conclusions, as can be seen in the last sentence of your post.



Objectivity would not spell out a conclusion. Objectivity would provide us with an array of possible outcomes, where you present only one outcome, and it is an outcome that, you yourself, do not claim to be certain; but only that it "can lead us", not that it manifestly "does lead us".

And certainly, if it spelled out a conclusion on one side of the arguement, it would do so on the other side as well. What is the conclusion of unrestrained "Individualist" tendancies? Chaos? Anarchy? 200,000 small arms deaths per year?



Who was it who said ... 'We must all stand together, or we shall assuredly all hang seperately"?

You are right, I did draw a conclusion based on my bias and opinion. I will give you that. I think I provided a decent explination, but my conclusion was definatily my bias.

Your definatily welcome to provide a different conclusion and picture of what you think a more "socialist" (or collectivist) society might be, and I would be happy to listen.

As to individualism, if I were a complete individualist I would be an anarcist, which I am not. I think that the bounds of individual rights and responsibilities are reached when it greatly hinders the safety, security, and freedoms of other individuals. And that is what the Government is there to regulate and protect. And in my opinion, when the government oversteps those responsibilies, I think that collectivism has crossed it's line.

As this applies to firearms, the problem is that gun control does not make people safer, and in fact does the opposite. If lawfully allowing citizens to own and carry firearms created hundreds of thousands of small arms deaths per year then we could have that conversation about reasonab;e 'gun control.' But evidence has shown that is not the case.

C.

PS. As it turns out, I do have some limited access here to the net this week (out of town right now). So I can respond in a limited sense.

 

[Grenadier]

Moderator's Note:

This thread is an accumulation of the off-topic posts from the thread from which it was split.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator

 

[elder999]

When browsing threads, I rarely notice in which forum the topic is listed. I see the title of the thread and if it looks interesting, I post.

One theme that I have recurred here.

'gun owners' have often made the claim that it is the Second Amendment that makes the others possible ... and yet, the other Amendments have been abused, curtailed, infringed, and broken ... and we hear nothing about that from the 'gun owners'.

Are the gun-owners 'one-issue' citizens?

Well, I'm a gun-owner, from quite a few generations of gun owners, and a strong supporter of "Second Amendment rights"-I used the quotes because there is no such thing as a "Constitutional right"-which have been abused,m curtailed, infringed and broken-just as the others have....frankly, I got a little tired of sounding the alarm on the continuing curtailment of our rights by the governme-I'm not a 'one-issue" citizen by any means, though, as has been pointed out, many Americans are-it's one of the things that's leading to the further curtailment of our rights and increasing governement interference:the manipulation of the citizenry on 'button issues' to the point of utter divisiveness, instead of any cohesion at all....

As far as "gun rights" go, though, they are the primary support of the other rights-at least, that's what the Founders intended:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"- George Washington

 

[michaeledward]

For the record, I did not name this thread. When it was spun out, the Moderator titled this thread.

Here's a question that occurred to me as I noticed this thread split.

Today, in America, gun owners are a minority of citizens. Off the top of my head, I believe it is somewhere around 25% of Americans that own guns.

When do the actions of those pushing for 'gun rights' become 'affirmative action'? Special protections for a minority population?

Going back to the original thread, from which this was split ... what would the response be to questions like "President Candidates: Who will be good for gay marriage?" and "Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for minority admissions into colleges?"

It was a thought.



And ... for the record (as if anyone here didn't know it) ... I am not a gun owner. In my lifetime, I have fired 10 rounds from a .22 rifle at scout camp and nothing more. I do not think the 2nd Amendment and 'Gun Control' are mutually exclusive ideas. And lastly, recently, I have begun to entertain the thought of becoming a hunter. Don't know if I will, but I have had some thoughts about it.

 

[elder999]

For the record, I did not name this thread. When it was spun out, the Moderator titled this thread.

Going back to the original thread, from which this was split ... what would the response be to questions like "President Candidates: Who will be good for gay marriage?" and "Presidential Candidates: Who will be good for minority admissions into colleges?"

Well, the pundits and talking heads on CNN and not news....er, I mean, Fox News do that every day-if there's an issue, they discuss the candidates stance on it, and the candidates themselves discuss it as well.....don't really see what your issue with the asking is.

 

[michaeledward]

Just thinking about gun owners as a minority.
Just thinking about majority rule.

And the confluence of those two ideas.

Seems that sometimes, minorities are decried as demanding special rights. Would that describe the question from the original post. "Which president will protect this minorities rights ... even if it is against the majority of citizens".

Just thinking .... that's all.

 

[elder999]

Just thinking about gun owners as a minority.
Just thinking about majority rule.

And the confluence of those two ideas.

Seems that sometimes, minorities are decried as demanding special rights. Would that describe the question from the original post. "Which president will protect this minorities rights ... even if it is against the majority of citizens".

Just thinking .... that's all.

seems to me that if things keep going the way they are, gun-owners won't be a "minority" much longer......just thinking.....that's all.

 

[Cruentus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/28/staggering-report-90-gun_n_62178.html

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/numbers.html

25% is the lowest estimate; estimations vary between that and over 50%. The article I referenced in the second link explains the problem with these stats, and why we don't know for sure.

That said, a large % of citizens own guns (25% is still a large part of the population), so the idea that it is just a few guys running around who want to be armed is not correct if that is what is being proposed.

But even if it were, no one is asking for "special privledges." People just don't want their freedoms infringed upon. The government is supposed to protect these freedoms. The great experiment of America was to protect the rights of the individual through guiding principles, not go with "majority rule."

 

[Monadnock]

Just thinking about gun owners as a minority.
Just thinking about majority rule.

And the confluence of those two ideas.

Seems that sometimes, minorities are decried as demanding special rights. Would that describe the question from the original post. "Which president will protect this minorities rights ... even if it is against the majority of citizens".

Just thinking .... that's all.

25% of the population as gun owners does not necessarily mean 75% of the population is against gun ownership. (Although I think the % of households owning guns is higher). I personally think it is one statistic we should never know, for the sake of privacy.

In other news...
The Supreme court is set to decide if they will take the Washington DC case in about a week. As has been determined (correctly) the DC gun ban was unconstitutional - just like all gun bans.

If I may quote ol' Ben, "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."

 

[michaeledward]

About 25% of the population use tobacco in smoke form. A decade ago, this group probably didn't think that it was a 'special privlege' to have a smoke with their dinner and dessert

And ... I don't think anything is being proposed with my comments. Just observations.

Minorities, in general, don't do well in most societies (Ask the Sunni's in Iraq). Our system of governance, from its founding, was predicated on protecting the rights of minorities (small states v large states). That seems to be in jeopardy these days.

But, in this country, a minority of citizens own firearms. And, the last three posts, anyhow, seem to demonstrate a bit of fiestiness over this fact.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=234

Gun owners don't act like a minority ... wonder what would happen if the Majority of non-gun owners started acting like the majority.

 

[Ray]

About 25% of the population use tobacco in smoke form. A decade ago, this group probably didn't think that it was a 'special privlege' to have a smoke with their dinner and dessert

however, more than one non-smoker didn't think it should have to be a special privelege to not have smoke with their dinner and dessert.

Minorities, in general, don't do well in most societies (Ask the Sunni's in Iraq). Our system of governance, from its founding, was predicated on protecting the rights of minorities (small states v large states). That seems to be in jeopardy these days.

But, in this country, a minority of citizens own firearms. And, the last three posts, anyhow, seem to demonstrate a bit of fiestiness over this fact.

Gun owners don't act like a minority ... wonder what would happen if the Majority of non-gun owners started acting like the majority.

If the minority owns the guns, or the minority controls the availability of resources then the majority gets ruled by the minority (or shot, or starved).

 

[michaeledward]

That seems to be the second time in this modified thread, that someone has chosen the language of aggression (or threat) to discuss the subject.

Isn't that interesting?

 

[dart68]

There was also a time when the "majority" of people thought that slavery was ok. Just because a majority thinks one way doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do or that is how it should be.

No matter what the percentage of people that are considered gun owners, it is a right that is enumerated in our highest written law. The second amendment doesn't mandate that you own a firearm. It only forbids laws that infringe on possessing them. That's the difference. The constitution says that I may possess a firearm. That the choice is mine to make. But if you pass laws banning the possession of firearms, then you make that decision for me without my consent.

 

[Monadnock]

Gun owners don't act like a minority ... wonder what would happen if the Majority of non-gun owners started acting like the majority.

Have a look at California and Massachusetts for a start. Looks like majority rule there trampled the rights of the minority.

 

[elder999]

Have a look at California and Massachusetts for a start. Looks like majority rule there trampled the rights of the minority.

Willing to bet that was the minority rule of politicians...

 

[Cryozombie]

Moderator's Note:

This thread is an accumulation of the off-topic posts from the thread from which it was split.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator

Along with my On topic post.