BoiseBYU wrote:
BoiseBYU wrote:
We have all sorts of reasonable regulation of first amendment conduct. Like we ban child pornography, allow for defamation claims, prohibit shouting fire in a theater, etc. We don't let children be bit by snakes to then exercise faith and heal the child With an exercise of that faith. I think most all of us support these sorts of regs and other like restrictions. So there are restraints in place and I am comfortable with them. I think reasonable restrictions for the second amendment can follow this precedent.
1. Do you really think the Founding Father's would have supported child pornography? That is ridiculous. To conclude that adults, manipulating, exploiting and most of the time forcing children into the pornographic acts, so these evil adults can take pictures and profit, is an exercise of free speech? That is beyond ridiculous.
2. Yes we allow defamation claims - it can also be called libel, slander, and vilification. It is dishonest speech, whether spoken or written, we are talking about lying. A lie that is harmful. The 1st Amendment was never meant to protect lies. This is ridiculous.
3. Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire? This is not protected by the 1st Amendment because it is a lie, a cruel hoax, and creates a dangerous situation where people can be seriously injured or killed. The 1st Amendment was never intended to protect dishonesty and lies.
However, if you shout "fire" in a theatre and there is a fire - well - you are telling the truth - and that's Ok. You are protected under the 1st Amendment.
To compare the above listed scenarios which are flat out dishonest, evil, and manipulative, to someone that legally purchases a gun, abides by every law, pays their taxes, is a stand up citizen and exercises their 2nd Amendment right; it's like comparing apples to cheese pizza.
You misunderstand completely what I was trying to say. I guess I'm a poor communicator. The First Amendment says Congress shall pass no law regarding freedom of speech. Yet over time, the Courts have said it really does not mean that and has adopted what I agree with you are reasonable and meaningful restrictions on that seemingly absolute language, restricting obscene, false and other types of speech. The point being that you, me and most of us like the fact that the First Amendment is not as absolute as it at least on its face appears to be. I think we can look at the Second Amendment similarly. It does not need to be interpreted absolutely such that a person can own armor-piercing bullets or automatic weapons or do so despite being mentally ill etc.The bottom line is I think it appropriate to consider and adopt reasonable restictions and limits on a person's right to bear arms. Perhaps you disagree, but even if you agree on that, where to draw that line of reasonableness will no doubt be open to debate and discussion and no doubt disagreement. Peace out.
Agreed, reasonable restrictions on free speech, such as lies, slander, libel - is a good thing. Lying and slandering can not be considered a positive thing in any society.
I'm not trying to be difficult with you. What I am trying to do is focus on is real world solutions to protecting our children, and us - the law abiding adults that live in the USA.
It's interesting - not one item contained in Feinstein's new Assault Weapon ban would have saved any lives in Newtown, CT. Don't you find that interesting?
Can you point to any legislation proposed by Obama, Feinstein, or anyone else that would have saved those children's lives in Newtown? Or the folks in the theatre in Aurora, CO? There is nothing. Don't you find that alarming? I do.
Not picking a fight here - but look at your own focus below -
BoiseBYU wrote:
The bottom line is I think it appropriate to consider and adopt reasonable restictions and limits on a person's right to bear arms.
Your comment's focus is placing restrictions on guns and gun ownership. With all due respect, that is putting a band-aid on a tumor. It will have very little effect on what criminals and crazy people do. The criminal himself must be addressed. There are already an estimated 300 million guns in the USA right now. Instituting regulations on magazine size and certain types of firearms is like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. For instance, exactly what does fingerprinting millions of law abiding, gun owning citizens do? Nothing - except allow the govt. to be more invasive - more socialist.
Though, I am for reasonable gun regulation - as long as it does not restrict law abiding, tax paying, mentally healthy, from getting weapons to protect themselves, hunt, and shoot recreationally. I still have faith that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and had good reasons behind their decisions.
Look at Chicago, it has the most restrictive gun control regulations in the Nation. Yet, people are being killed there at a horrendous rate.
Of note - when Barack Obama's personal advisor Valerie Jarrett got married this past summer (June 2012) in Chicago, the Chicago PD assigned an additional 200 armed police to ensure security. In addition to a heavy Secret Service presence - because Barack Obama attended.
Of note - since 2001 in Afghanistan, 2,000 soldiers have been killed. In that same time frame, in Chicago, 5,000 citizens have been murdered. In the city that has the toughest, most restrictive gun control regulations in the Nation.
The key is, as I pointed out in my previous post, to target the violent, gun using criminal and remove him permanently from society.
Feinstein wants to mandate all gun owners of assault type weapons to register and be fingerprinted. Now, you may think that's Ok. But, included in those assault weapons are semi-auto pistols. The Liberal Left thinks - no big deal - as it should be. Really? To what end?
But, last week a New York paper posted on the internet all the names and addresses of registered gun owners in 2 counties. That was not part of the deal when people registered - to be publicly "outed" to who knows who. That is outrageous.
I'm going to be very blunt here; don't these Lefty newspaper Jackasses realize they just created a target list for criminals to get guns? They have identified all the registered handgun owners - law abiding citizens - by name and address? And, stunningly, have announced they will publish and "out" more! It is beyond comprehension why they would do such a thing. Who knows how many are elderly folks or single women (who are very vulnerable) are on those lists. But, it's a classic Leftist move - they feel entitled to trample on the rights of law abiding citizens, when they disagree with those rights. No respect for the privacy of good, law abiding citizens.
Here's a key point they did not think about. A pretty sizable number of those "outed" gun owners are women, that have moved, and have court ordered restraining orders in place against abusive ex's. They have a registered handgun because they are genuinely frightened and in danger. Now that stupid Lefty paper has identified those terrified, at risk women by name and address. Isn't that just dandy?
I know you have good intentions. I sincerely believe that. But, I do not believe the mouth breathers in Washington have the best, most honorable intentions. This is simply an opportunity to reign in the 2nd Amendment because they don't like it. That point is self evident because not one proposal has been made since Sandy Hook that would have saved those children.
