Not Just Picking a Fight

[RandomPhantom700]

People make the false argument "But Zombie, we restrict other rights all the time, you can't just yell "Fire" in a crowded theater" or "your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins" but those, however, are false arguments.

I absolutely CAN yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and if the theater is on fire, I might be a hero. I wont be jailed for it. HOWEVER, if I yell Fire in a theater that is not on fire and cause mayhem and harm, I can be charged with that. This equates with Gun ownership in the following way. I can own a firearm and its perfectly legal, as long as I dont use said weapon to commit a crime there is no argument needed. If I do, then I face penalties for commuting that crime with the weapon.

You make a good point, but I think you're being a bit misleading (inadvertently) in how you summarize the arguments. When people make these arguments about restricting other protected rights, they're not dependent upon destructive end results, they're dependent on the justifications for the limitations. For example, the first amendment is pretty straightforward in its wording too, but there are still similar limitations placed on one's freedom of speech, where such limitations are justified.

Let's take your yelling fire example. Assume for the moment that you do yell fire in a crowded theater where there isn't one, but nobody falls for it. No stampedes for the exit, nobody getting crushed or suffering a heart attack. There's been no harm, and thus you really couldn't be held liable for anything, yet the justification for restricting the right to yell fire is still there. Freedom of speech in this situation remains protected BUT NOT absolute, regardless of whether actual harm occurs.

Regulations on gun ownership work the same; the question is whether such individual regulations are justified. Thus, the arguments are not false because they point out that even the highest protected rights (freedom of speech on one hand, gun ownership on another) can be limited; the protection is not absolute.

 

[Cryozombie]

You may be right. I'm not a lawyer, but it always seems that the results of the action are what is prosecuted, not the action itself... although I suppose the point could be made that charging someone with Disturbing the Peace or Malicious Mischief for yelling fire and no one reacting could be construed as a restriction on the speech... *shrug*

 

[ballen0351]

You may be right. I'm not a lawyer, but it always seems that the results of the action are what is prosecuted, not the action itself... although I suppose the point could be made that charging someone with Disturbing the Peace or Malicious Mischief for yelling fire and no one reacting could be construed as a restriction on the speech... *shrug*

You are correct. Its not a crime to yell fire in the theater. Its a crime to disturb the peace or incite a riot. If you yell Fire and everyone laughs then nobody's peace was disturbed and its not a crime. You yell fire and people jump up screaming trying to leave then you have disturbed them and now its a crime. Same if you yelled fire and you were the only one in the theater its not a crime because nobody was disturbed. The act of saying fire in itself is not a crime. You can say FIRE FIRE FIRE all you want its the disturbance of others thats a crime and you dont need to say fire for that you could yell Crayons and the same charge would apply.

 

[ballen0351]

As for Marking Marijuana legal well I have never been told 1 good argument for why its status should be changed. All I ever hear is well you can drink beer and thats worse, or Marijuana is safe it never hurts people, or lets tax it it will save the economy. All of which except the last I have seen for a fact to be false. I also believe the tax thing will also prove false over time. Ive been to Murders that occurred over a $20 bag of weed, Fatal Car accidents where the only drug found in the drivers system was Marijuana, Ive seen family's destroyed over Marijuana. Every crack head and heroin addict I have ever interviewed started by smoking Marijuana as a kid. Ive know friends growing up that smoked weed all day dropped out of school and 2 of which are in prison and none of them are what I would call productive members of society. I also see right now how many kids drink alcohol because it legal for adults they always say whats the big deal officers its just a beer my parents drink and ill be 21 in a few years. I can only imagine the same attitude when Marlboro starts selling Prepackaged Joints. How can we look kids in the face and tell them they should not smoke Marijuana when they sell it legally at 7-11.

 

[Cryozombie]

A Ive been to Murders that occurred over a $20 bag of weed, Fatal Car accidents where the only drug found in the drivers system was Marijuana, Ive seen family's destroyed over Marijuana.

Yeah but... I've seen murders committed over shoes and Cell phones, is that a valid reason to outlaw them? I've seen fatal car accidents where NO drugs were in anyone's system, and I've seen families destroyed over sex.

I think the only point you are making, is that things can be triggers?

Every crack head and heroin addict I have ever interviewed started by smoking Marijuana as a kid. Ive know friends growing up that smoked weed all day dropped out of school and 2 of which are in prison and none of them are what I would call productive members of society.

By the same token, I know numerous "pot heads" that don't do crack or heroin, so saying "if you smoke pot you will move onto something else" is probably dichotomy of sorts. I also know several "prominent" citizens who smoke pot, and they hold down professional jobs and maintain families.

I also see right now how many kids drink alcohol because it legal for adults they always How can we look kids in the face and tell them they should not smoke Marijuana when they sell it legally at 7-11.

How can we look kids in the face and tell them they can't smoke a Marlboro either, since they sell them legally at 7-11.

 

[Steve]

Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite.

It's really that simple. 'Oh, government is bad. Oh, they'll take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands. Oh, marijuana is BAD. M'kay?" Hypocrites.

 

[ballen0351]

1)Yeah but... I've seen murders committed over shoes and Cell phones, is that a valid reason to outlaw them? I've seen fatal car accidents where NO drugs were in anyone's system, and I've seen families destroyed over sex.

I think the only point you are making, is that things can be triggers?



2)By the same token, I know numerous "pot heads" that don't do crack or heroin, so saying "if you smoke pot you will move onto something else" is probably dichotomy of sorts. I also know several "prominent" citizens who smoke pot, and they hold down professional jobs and maintain families.



3)How can we look kids in the face and tell them they can't smoke a Marlboro either, since they sell them legally at 7-11.

I wish I knew how to break up quotes I just cant figure it out Im computer Stupid so Ill number your points and reply.

1)I was not saying Marijuana is the only reason for murders and accidents I was responding to the argument that always comes up in thiese topics that "Marijuana never hurts anyone" "Marijuana is safer then a Beer", "Noone ever dies from pot" Ive seen Murders happen over .38 cents Murders happen for all types of reasons and even no reason at all but you cant say Marijuana has never hurt anyone. There are Major drug wars going on over Marijuana. Ive been to Marijuana eradication classes and have seen pictures of Marijuana fields in US National Parks booby-trapped with Military land mines and hand grenades. So its not harmless.

2) I also never said everyone that smokes pot moves on to other drugs I said most people that are on other drugs will tell you that they started smoking pot in school and it played a part in them moving on to Crack, Heroin, ect. I am a Narcotics Detective so I interview users and dealers almost daily Ive been doing this for years and have interviewed 1000's of people most all have the same story. Now I know Marijuana is not the only reason but it helps.
I alway hear that "I smoke Pot and I have a good job or Im productive member" line also. Well in fact your not your a criminal leading a criminal life so your not a productive member. How much more productive could you be if you didnt smoke pot. You obviously dont care about yourself or your family if your will to risk it all over a joint because most of these so called productive peoples jobs would be in trouble if they were ever caught buying Marijuana. So your will to throw it all away for a hit.

3) you proved my point look how many teenagers smoke now because its so readily available Should we now add Marijuana to the mix?

 

[ballen0351]

Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite.

It's really that simple. 'Oh, government is bad. Oh, they'll take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands. Oh, marijuana is BAD. M'kay?" Hypocrites.

So you are in favor of getting rid of laws outlawing Crack, heroin, prostitution, Drinking and driving, and all the other Govt intrusions on our lives too right?

 

[Steve]

So you are in favor of getting rid of laws outlawing Crack, heroin, prostitution, Drinking and driving, and all the other Govt intrusions on our lives too right?

I've never alleged to being a libertarian or railed against government intrusion. How about you? Only when convenient. Right?

Regarding any argument you're making, it's another case of selective memory. Can we just link to the other thread and save everyone a lot of time?

 

[ballen0351]

I've never alleged to being a libertarian or railed against government intrusion. How about you? Only when convenient. Right?

Regarding any argument you're making, it's another case of selective memory. Can we just link to the other thread and save everyone a lot of time?

Great way to not answer the question
Ive never claimed to be a Libertarian either. I believe what I believe some libertarian views, Conservative views, and I'm sure I have a Liberal view someplace inside me on some topics.
I believe the Constitution says I have the right to have a gun but I've read it a few times and Ive never seen the right to smoke a joint anyplace in there perhaps you can show me that section. The OP asked a question I answered it feel free to link anything you want if it floats your boat.

 

[Steve]

Great way to not answer the question
Ive never claimed to be a Libertarian either. I believe what I believe some libertarian views, Conservative views, and I'm sure I have a Liberal view someplace inside me on some topics.
I believe the Constitution says I have the right to have a gun but I've read it a few times and Ive never seen the right to smoke a joint anyplace in there perhaps you can show me that section. The OP asked a question I answered it feel free to link anything you want if it floats your boat.

It clearly struck a chord. You're being very defensive.

For the rest, it's all been well documented in another relatively recent thread. Not avoiding a question. Just refusing to answer it again, pretending that it has never been addressed before. That's a waste of my time (and yours).

 

[ballen0351]

It clearly struck a chord. You're being very defensive.

For the rest, it's all been well documented in another relatively recent thread. Not avoiding a question. Just refusing to answer it again, pretending that it has never been addressed before. That's a waste of my time (and yours).

I'm not defensive I answered your post. You called me a hypocrite and I answered you I dont label myself a strict libertarian. I believe we do need some laws as a society. However I believe the laws need to follow the constitution. The constitution says I can have a gun so Im against any laws that go against the Constitution. I see nowhere in the constitution that gives me the right to smoke pot. So that choice is then given to the people to decide and the people decided to make it against the law and I see no reasons to change that law. If the people decide to change it and make it legal then so be it but I don't think they will be ready for the consequences.
I have no problems answering your questions but you seem to not have an answer for mine because they go against your argument.

 

[Cryozombie]

Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite.

It's really that simple. 'Oh, government is bad. Oh, they'll take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands. Oh, marijuana is BAD. M'kay?" Hypocrites.

While I agree with the Hypocritical sentiment 100%, you just can't use it with Guns/Pot because Guns are a Right, pot is not. But there are plenty of other examples that do work.

 

[crushing]

Anyone who claims to be in favor of less government intrusion and identifies themselves as anything resembling a libertarian who is also in favor of prohibition on marijuana is a hypocrite.

It's really that simple. 'Oh, government is bad. Oh, they'll take my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands. Oh, marijuana is BAD. M'kay?" Hypocrites.

Most often on this site the government intrusions that people seek to curtail are those of the federal government. Those people may still be in favor of prohibition, but believe that there is to be any prohibition that it should be done at the state and local governments. Because these discussions often revolve around national laws and not at the state or local levels, those people may appear to be libertarian.

Steve, I think I do understand where you are coming from because we have seen the hypocrisy of which you speak in actions from politicians that claim libertarian when it suits them, but aren't nearly so when it comes to federal regulations regarding marijuana, medical or recreational, limiting marriage and attempting to regulate physician assisted suicide.

At one time in America's history a national prohibition took a constitutional amendment, now prohibitions can be passed as the political winds blow. And blow they often do.

 

[ballen0351]

While I agree with the Hypocritical sentiment 100%, you just can't use it with Guns/Pot because Guns are a Right, pot is not. But there are plenty of other examples that do work.

I don't think it makes you Hypocritical to have conflicting beliefs. Being hypocritical would be me saying Im against Legal weed and as im typing it Im smoking a fat one. Having different beliefs due to life experiences just makes us human. Before I became a police officer and saw the damage Marijuana can cause I was for its legalization I was for all drugs being legal because I "thought" the only one thats getting hurt is the user so who cares. I have now seen with my own eyes this is not true and there are many direct and indirect victims of drug use.

 

[Cryozombie]

Since this thread has brought up the gun control topic, let me ask the opinion of Proponents of gun control here on this board:

Despite the "Shall Not Be Infringed" wording, people seem to think its reasonable (I don't specifically mean people on MT, I mean in the Nation in general) to infringe on those rights with things like "May Issue" permits that require one to show real need before a permit is given, argue for Insanley high insurance to be carried by owners, etc... then would you also agree that other rights need similar regulation?

The First Amendment should require a 3 day wait and a background check before you can voice your opinions, to ensure that you aren't the kind of person that would use hate speech?

The 19th Amendment would require women to undergo a manditory "Voter Training Class" before they can Vote to ensure that they wont vote for the Sexy Saxophone Player, or the "Hot Black Man who's baby I want to have" but rather vote based on educated decisions?

The Fourth Amendment shall only apply IF they feel you have a genuine need to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?

The 25th Amendment will apply only in those states without a large minority population?

I could go on but I think you get where I am going with this. Why are these restrictions tolerable on the Second Amendment but not on the others? Believe me, I understand the danger a firearm, sword, or knife can present if used in a manner that is improper. But is the fear that someone may use them in an inappropriate manner enough to justify the limitation of a right up to and including the exclusion of having that right for everyone? Especially when you consider the majority of those people who will use them inappropriately will do so at the exclusion of other laws as well, meaning the status of those restrictions probably won't matter anyhow?

If so, I have a laundry list of rights *I* think are downright dangerous...

 

[Cryozombie]

I don't think it makes you Hypocritical to have conflicting beliefs. Being hypocritical would be me saying Im against Legal weed and as im typing it Im smoking a fat one. Having different beliefs due to life experiences just makes us human.

The hypocrisy is saying "I want the government out of our lives, but goddamn it they need to regulate this drug" or even "ZOMG Guns need to be banned because they are dangerous, but how dare you put up a Manger, we have a RIGHT to be free from religion!"

 

[ballen0351]

The hypocrisy is saying "I want the government out of our lives, but goddamn it they need to regulate this drug" or even "ZOMG Guns need to be banned because they are dangerous, but how dare you put up a Manger, we have a RIGHT to be free from religion!"

I guess I see Hypocrisy differently then because your idea of having different beliefs on different issues will make everyone a Hypocrite.

 

[Cryozombie]

I guess I see Hypocrisy differently then because your idea of having different beliefs on different issues will make everyone a Hypocrite.

No. That isn't what I said. Lemme break it down.

Two examples, maybe I can clear up my meaning for you.

If you have Right A and Right B, and I say "Sorry you have to give up right A" and you argue that "You cant do that it's a Right, you cant Take away a right" but then say "But I disagree with B, so you have to give that up" that isn't having differing opinions on 2 issues, that is being Hypocritical, BECAUSE your justification for A is that it is a Right, while ignoring that exact same Justification for B.

However,

If you say "You cant take away A because I agree with it! But you need to give up B because I don't" THAT would be having different opinions, not being Hypocritical.

My point is that I am seeing a lot of the former on a lot of issues latley, especially the gun control issue.

 

[ballen0351]

No. That isn't what I said. Lemme break it down.

Two examples, maybe I can clear up my meaning for you.

If you have Right A and Right B, and I say "Sorry you have to give up right A" and you argue that "You cant do that it's a Right, you cant Take away a right" but then say "But I disagree with B, so you have to give that up" that isn't having differing opinions on 2 issues, that is being Hypocritical, BECAUSE your justification for A is that it is a Right, while ignoring that exact same Justification for B.

However,

If you say "You cant take away A because I agree with it! But you need to give up B because I don't" THAT would be having different opinions, not being Hypocritical.

My point is that I am seeing a lot of the former on a lot of issues latley, especially the gun control issue.

I got you yes I agree with that. i was looking at it in the context of Gun rights vs Marijuana. One is a right provided by the constitution and the other is not.