[2dogs]

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/03/31/guestoped.htm

Liar Liar
By C. Chris Telander © 2003

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson

Second Amendment advocates, sadly, are more than passingly familiar with the argument that rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions. When, on occasion, the genocide enabling morons who refer to themselves as "gun control advocates" are forced into a position where they must condescend to acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment does indeed protect an individual right, the "reasonable" restrictions argument is their primary fallback position.

Usually, their argument will go something like this: "All right. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right. Even granting that, the right isn't absolute. Like all rights it's subject to reasonable restrictions."

"I'm a free speech absolutists." they'll continue. "I believe strongly in the unfettered freedom of the press. In spite of these strong beliefs, however, I realize that those rights aren't unlimited. There are certain reasonable restrictions placed upon both of those rights. For example: There are reasonable laws which forbid me from using my freedom of speech to slander another person, or from using the freedom of the press to libel another person. And, as everyone knows, I can't use my freedom of speech to falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. These are reasonable restrictions that we, as a society, have placed upon the freedoms of speech and of the press. Why should a personal right to keep and bear arms, if such a right even exists, be any different? Why shouldn't that purported right be subject to similar, reasonable restrictions?"

Taken at face value, this may seem like a reasonable argument, and many who claim to be 2nd Amendment advocates have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

The problem, of course, is that the "reasonable" restrictions argument is utterly, irredeemably fallacious. It's just another Big Lie, in a seemingly never ending stream of Big Lies, promulgated by the victim disarmament crowd to forward their agenda.

Worst of all, it works amazingly well. The fact that many so-called 2nd Amendment advocates have been converted to the cause of their enemies, and themselves tolerate, support, or even demand "reasonable" restrictions demonstrates this fact quite eloquently. Herr Goebbels would be pleased.

It's time we put this particular falsehood to rest, permanently, before it can cause any further damage.

As Jefferson put it, our rights consist of "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." In other words, our rights end at precisely the point where they begin to infringe upon the rights of another. This is the fundamental principle that underlies the entire concept of rights, and, it seems to me, the Zero Aggression Principle as well.

What's more, most people - yes, even the unprincipled murderer, mugger, and rapist enablers of the victim disarmament movement - will agree that our rights only extend to the point where their exercise would begin to infringe upon the rights of another.

Keeping that underlying principle in mind, let's look a little more closely at those "reasonable" restrictions on our freedoms of speech and of the press that the victim disarmers typically use as justification for restrictions upon our right to keep and bear arms.

The one thing that all of the acts proscribed by those "reasonable" restrictions have in common is the fact that every one of them constitutes a clear, direct, and provable infringement upon the rights of others. Libel and slander violate one's long standing and universally recognized right to maintain one's good name and reputation. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, creates a legal fraud. In other words, since our rights only extend to the point where their exercise would begin to infringe upon the rights of another, neither libel, slander, nor falsely shouting "Fire!" in crowded theater were EVER part of our freedoms of speech or of the press to begin with.

"Now wait a minute," some may be thinking. "Since slander was never part of my freedom of speech to begin with, how can a law that punishes acts of slander be considered a restriction, 'reasonable' or otherwise, on my freedom of speech?"

It can't.

"Hold on a second here," others may muse. "If the freedom of the press never included a 'right' to commit libel in the first place, how can laws that punish libel be restrictions, 'reasonable' or otherwise, on the freedom of the press?"

They aren't.

"Just hold the phone there," still others might ponder. "Since, right from the beginning, I've never had a 'right' to falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, how can a law that punishes me for doing so be a restriction, 'reasonable' or otherwise, on my freedom of speech?"

It isn't.

Not one of the "reasonable" restrictions typically cited by the victim disarmament crowd, as justifications for restrictions on other rights, act in any way to alter, diminish, or restrict the freedoms of speech or of the press. In other words, they're not restrictions at all. It's a Big Lie.

Unfortunately, people are seldom persuaded by facts or reason, and nowhere is this more true than among supporters of the victim disarmament movement. In spite of having been involved in the "Great American Gun War" for over a quarter-century now, I've yet to see a committed victim disarmer concede to superior facts or reason.

Raising a superior argument does produce one distinct benefit, however. It often encourages them to shut up for a while, presumably for fear of looking more foolish than they already do. And, ultimately, wouldn't we be at least a little better off if they'd ALL just shut the hell up?

[Bruce H]

Rights with restrictions become priveledges. Privledges can be revolked at any time.

[FPrice]

The only "reasonable restriction" is that you cannot use your firearm to commit a crime against another person.

Take for example,

"There are reasonable laws which forbid me from using my freedom of speech to slander another person, or from using the freedom of the press to libel another person. And, as everyone knows, I can't use my freedom of speech to falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. These are reasonable restrictions that we, as a society, have placed upon the freedoms of speech and of the press. Why should a personal right to keep and bear arms, if such a right even exists, be any different?"

Well, we already have those "reasonable restrictions". Because you cannot use your freedom of speech to libel someone does not mean you cannot "possess" your freedom of speech. Likewise you cannot use your firearm to harm someone (without good cause) but you can still exercise the freedom to keep and bear arms.

The reasonable restrictions presented in this article do NOT in any way keep you from speaking, they merely place restrictions upon how you use that freedom, not deny you the basic freedom. Therefore, if anyone tries to equate the two, merely inform them to really equate the two, a person would have to have their vocal cords removed along with their hands in order to prevent them from mis-using their "freedom of speech" in the same way they would deny you the right to physically possess a firearm.

[Rovert]

2dogs, that's a very insightful analysis. I've often remarked something similar, but with a slightly different spin.

I've often felt that one has the RIGHT to say whatever one wants. However, if there's an aggrieved party, you also have to accept that others have the RIGHT to hold you accountable for any damages your transgression may have caused.

For instance, you can slander whomever you want. But if nobody believes what you say, and there are no damages or suit brought by the target of your slander, then as the saying goes: "no harm, no foul". Likewise, if you yell "FIRE" in a theater, and nobody takes exception, there's no inconvenience, ergo, no problem.

If the paradigm of punishing the ABUSE of a right for DAMAGES that resulted from a transgression were the beginning and end of legislation and statutes, we'd all be in pretty good shape. It would preserve maximum liberties, but proscribe appropriate penalties for transgressors.

Sadly, one of the many problems we have in America, is the anti-libertarian bent that the tree of justice has taken. Laws too often categorically deny a right, rather than simply proscribing a penalty if some damage should arise from the abuse of a right. One example of this would be firearms laws... rather than categorically denying the right of self defense to our citizens, one should simply hold the criminal who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime accountable for his actions.

And once a right is denied, it is rarely, if ever, reinstated. We see it happening more and more, every day, often with evidence to the contrary. Take cellphones as an example. Our various state legislatures and municipalities have been quick to jump on the bandwagon to ban the use of handheld phones, so that our lawmakers can make a name for themselves, and justify the tax dollars that they consume.

Yet, now that the evidence is mounting that clearly illustrates that cellphones are way down the list of accident causes, ranking behind many other causes of things that we DON'T ban, those laws are not repealed. Ever notice how all of the statues on the books, and the bills currently in your respective state legislatures, are all punitive in nature? Why is it that our government is used as a tool to punish citizens, rather than rewarding positive behavior? All the laws being put into place are incrementing our rights away, to punish a handful of the few who abuse them.

Sadly, our American culture has fallen from grace, and we have come into the habit of holding an entire class of citizens guilty for the misdeeds of a few reckless miscreants, or the occasional unfortunate accidents that occur.

When we rely too heavily on laws to regulate the every day social structure of Man, you take something away from Mankind.

[Double Naught Spy]

I think y'all have at least some pretty good understanding. The idea of rights being absolute cannot achieved and so there must be restrictions.

Simply stated, your rights do not supercede my rights and vice versa. You may have the right to freedom of expression, free speech, and a right to bear arms, but I may not GRANT you those rights on my property. You may have the right to use lethal force to protect you and your family, but only against those who are the threat. You dont' get to hose down a cafe full of people to stop the one guy threatening you.

I find it interesting that people often like to quote that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but then they also state that they don't think felons should be allowed to have arms. If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, then felons should be allowed to have arms. One fellow pointed out that felons have lost their rights. Well, if they have lost their rights, then the right to bear arms HAS been infringed. The quote is not that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed given specific parameters and restrictions.

People also like to point out that America is not a free society as claimed. Maybe that is true. Every law enacted serves to limit freedoms of some sort and ideally serves to protect its people as well, or the country. Obviously, we have to have laws to have a country and to maintain some aspect of societal order. We do live in a free country - relative to most others.

[Rovert]

DNS, interesting point:
If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, then felons should be allowed to have arms.

I guess the question is whether or not we, as a society who believes in free will, and the concept of human and civil rights, can deny those rights to those who have violated the rights of others. Can we fairly, and justly, deny liberties to others, based upon their history and/or actions?

Methinks "yes", this is a fair, just, and reasonable thing to do, in certain cases. Denying certain liberties to individuals who have proven themselves incapable of operating within the parameters of normal society, is a prudent thing to do. These persons should pay a penalty for their lack of judgement, and be held accountable for their actions. Those who have not learned to responsibly contain their rights so that they don't transgress against the rights of others, have, in a manner of speaking "not learned how to play in the sandbox nicely with the other kiddies." So, we change the "status" of that citizen, presumably until (s)he has learned that sense of responsibility to others, and oneself.

And, presumably, when that penalty, or "debt to society" is paid, the slate should be wiped clean, and (s)he can start all over again. For instance, my understanding is that felons do not have the right to vote. But when the term of their sentence is complete, it's (theoretically) as though it never happened, and voting rights are restored.

Now, with all of that said, I think that most of us here, as staunch as we are in supporting our 2nd Amendment, would agree that SOME people just shouldn't have guns, because their behavior and/or history has evidenced them to be a transgressor against our personal liberties, or a pattern of otherwise irresponsible behavior. In other words, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

I think, with rare exception, that anyone here would agree that violent felons have the right to own a gun. Someone like Charles Manson, or other persons with such severe social or mental disorders, have disqualified themselves from the right to keep and bear arms, because their behavior evidences a pattern of irresponsibly transgressing against our right to be safe. In other words, some people just can't control themselves.

However, I have a beef with some things that the law does. Where firearms are concerned, one felon is as bad as another. There is no sense of balance, or discretion, in how the restriction is applied.

For instance, an accountant who is convicted for fraud is not a VIOLENT felon, therefore, he has not disqualified himself from owning a gun. He has, however, in my opinion, disqualified himself from being a CPA.

What say you? Can we legitimately deny certain rights to certain citizens, and change their "status" in society, based upon their history of behavior? And, if so, should there not be some sort of granularity in the law that differentiates between violent and non-violent crimes, as it relates to those restrictions?

Curious to hear what everyone thinks.

[Feanaro]

I think criminals waive certain things when they commit a crime. The right to pack heat is one of those, I think. I think there should be a waiting period between conviction/release where you can't own a gun, depending on the crime. A police chief or a judge should be able to over-ride it early if they judge them to be reformed. I don't know if that would work or not, but it seems good to me.

People with serious mental diseases should probably be barred from owning a gun, depending on the disease.

[Pinned&Recessed]

I find it funny that up to the GCA '68, felons could own guns. It's funny because if you compare the crime rates of America up to 1968 and from 1968-now, the crime rates were lower when felons could own guns. I'd like to live pre-'68 please.

Of course, back then America was a different country with different values and a different cultural mindset, but that's a whole 'nuther thread.

[Feanaro]

Pre '68 was another time. A time when people didn't fear guns as much as now and children were taught values... /end grandpa mode.

I think if you shoot someone, rob someone with a gun or otherwise use it in a crime you have demonstrated that you will likely use it again. Such people bear close watch I think.

[Hobbyist]

Rights Without Exceptions (http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4932)

The statements of rights in the Bill of Rights are categorical and contain no exceptions. This form suggests that the rights referred to do not vary to suit the circumstance, are not to be “outweighed” in balancing tests with other rights or interests, and are not subject to unstated exceptions: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and so forth. Qualifications such as, “unless presenting a clear and present danger,” “except to the extent inconsistent with public safety,” or “unless outweighed by a compelling state interest” simply are not there.

...

By creating a relationship of means and end between a right and its purpose, we create a feedback loop in which the means is constantly re-evaluated and adjusted in light of the degree to which it is achieving the purpose. This process also has no logical stopping point and can also lead to the complete re-definition of the original chosen means (that is, the complete evisceration of the right). The Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence provides ample evidence and proof of this.

[Drjones]

2 Dogs:

EXCELLENT article!

Thank you for posting!

My opinions:

-Your rights end where mine begin. It's really that simple. I have the right to do pretty much anything that doesn't infringe upon any of your rights.

-The government exists to serve the people, NOT the other way around. Think about this concept for a few minutes. It is a very important idea, and should change your perspective on a lot of things.

-Regarding felons; is anyone going to sit here and tell me, with a straight face, that people like the Enron guys deserve to lose their RKBA for the rest of their lives, even after they get released from prison? Give me a break.

Violent felons: If we worry about a person so much that we do not think we can trust him to own firearms, WHY are they being released in the first place? However, there are also some other logical fallacies at play here;

- That owning guns would cause or encourage the individual to commit more crimes

-That victim disarmament laws would actually prevent said individual from obtaining a firearm anyways.

- Regarding mental illnesses: That is a VERY slippery slope you embark upon there, sir. What if people decided that, like homosexuality, gun ownership or fondess of guns is a "mental disease"? (I am NOT implying that I agree with those morons who think homosexuality is a disease, I'm just making a point)

What if they decide that ADD is a "mental disorder" which would preclude one from owning firearms?

And so on and so forth....

[Coronach]

Rights as absolutes is a nice, philosophically neat idea that is very appealing. And I think that you can hold rights as absolutes right up to the point that you allow another living breathing human being onto your desert island. After that, its all about which restrictions are proper and which are not.

Mike

[2dogs]

This might simplify things:

1. Violent felon- should be either dead, incarcerated for life, or 100% guaranteed rehabilitated (in which case he should be permitted arms).

2. Mentally ill- As regards 2nd, I don't much care if someone sees daisys that aren't there or talks to mud- only if he is (proven) violent to others in which case see #1 above for suggestions.


There is no other reason I can think of to deny someone his right to keep and bear arms, or limit that right. If this were a perfect world I suppose it would work like that. Not in this one I'm afraid. Not when laws are perpetrated on people for reasons other than common sense or justice.

[Rovert]

Dr. Jones, ditto what 2dogs said.

Violent felons: If we worry about a person so much that we do not think we can trust him to own firearms, WHY are they being released in the first place?
Good question. Because the system doesn't always work. Because he might have a good lawyer. But most of all, because for now, it's just the way things are, until they change. But because things are the way they are, doesn't mean that we should expose the rest of our citizenry to MORE RISK from the person in question. Just because a person is released from jail doesn't instantly make them trustworthy. It just gives them a chance to set themselves straight, with a fresh appreciation of what it means to have rights, and a fresh perspective on the rights of others, having had theirs revoked.

What if people decided that, like homosexuality, gun ownership or fondess of guns is a "mental disease"?
Boy, if you're looking for a slippery slope, you built one into your arguement where none exists. We're talking VIOLENT TENDENCIES here, not lifestyle choices among consenting adults. Let's not change the circumstances.

[Drjones]

Boy, if you're looking for a slippery slope, you built one into your arguement where none exists. We're talking VIOLENT TENDENCIES here, not lifestyle choices among consenting adults. Let's not change the circumstances.

No, you misunderstand me: There ARE people who seriously believe that homosexuality is a DISEASE, NOT the product of free choice, or just "the way someone is."

If I just happen to be smart enough to see through all the liberal anti-gun BS, and realize the benefits and pure fun of gun ownership (on top of the fact that I realize that it is an inalieable human right) there ARE people who could (and probably would) classify me as "mentally ill."

Do you get my point?

If you want to start denying people rights based on "mental illnesses" you embark upon a slippery slope, as technically ADD is a "mental illness," right?

I realize this isn't absolute, but you have to be *darn* careful and specific when restricting people's rights based on "mental illness."

Am I making sense?

[Coronach]

One moment, please.

Lets NOT get involved in the side-debate on homosexuality. DrJones threw it out there as an example. However, homosexuality (like abortion and religion) has the tendency to be a polarizing and divisive topic, and the threads centering upon it tend to shed more heat than light.

This thread is about rights, and their status as absolutes or relatives. Lets continue discussing that, and not go flying off the cliff of the "homosexuals: perfectly fine, diseased, or just sick" debate. :rolleyes:

Thank you, we now return you to your regularly scheduled debates and rantings. :D

Mike

[labgrade]

But wait a minute.

Does anyone accept the idea that you ever had the right to violate anothers'?

'Course not.

I never had the right to shout liblest statements, nor "Fire!" in the theater (when there was none), nor to unjustifiably shoot anyone.

That "right" never existed.

My rights are absolute. That some would confuse the issue with supposititions about "what I may do," is just silly & detracts from the discussion.

I have the right to do whatever I will long as it never infringes upon anothers' - & that right was never there to begin with.

[Rovert]

Dr Jones: I think we're saying more or less the same thing here, but in different ways. There are types and degrees of "mental health" (or lack thereof), and many of those who can be clinically diagnosed are airplane pilots, policemen, or heart surgeons. The question, to my way of thinking, is whether or not that "disorder" has, or is likely to, manifest itself as a danger to others, and if it does, what the penalty or precaution should be. For instance, you can be clinically depressed, and still be a bus driver. But if that depression starts manifesting itself in your tendency to crash busloads of people into telephone poles, it's time you turned in your license. Likewise, if a social disorder, or past behavior, has manifested itself in violent tendencies, and a person has physically assaulted people, I tend to feel that person is not to be trusted with a firearm.

Coronach: Not to worry. I don't think anyone was pursuing the homosexuality issue. I'm pretty sure it was taken as illustrative by everyone here, and I just responded to it under that presumption. I think we all understood that it was just given as an example.

Labgrade: Right church, wrong pew, I think. Either your example is contradictory, or I'm not clear on where you're going.

I never had the right to shout liblest statements, nor "Fire!" in the theater (when there was none), nor to unjustifiably shoot anyone.
Well, yes you do, but concurrent to that right, presumably, I have the right to punch you in the mouth (legally speaking) for damaging my name, or have you arrested for getting me bruised from the scuffle toward the exit door in a panic. With regard to the last example, if you're at home, and a thug enters, and is threatening you and your wife with a kitchen knife, then rushes at you with perceived intent to stab you, do you not have the RIGHT to shoot him, to defend yourself? So, in that case, you DO have the right to shoot someone.

Rights are sometimes situational. It depends very much on circumstance.

My rights are absolute. That some would confuse the issue with supposititions about "what I may do," is just silly & detracts from the discussion.
No, that's EXACTLY the discussion. The question is what is a "right" and where, when, and under what circumstances can that right be restricted by law or social sanction. What you "may" do is often legal, and what you "may not" do is often illegal or immoral. So, if may/may not = legal/illegal = rights/no rights, then it's at the very heart of the discussion we're having here. The issue at stake is whether or not, rights are absolute, or if there are extreme circumstances where those absolute rights must be rescinded from individuals that have not demonstrated the commensurate responsibility to wield them.

I have the right to do whatever I will long as it never infringes upon anothers' - & that right was never there to begin with.
ah, but again, here you're being contradictory. Either rights are absolute, or they're not. You're acknowledging that in at least one circumstance, YOUR rights are NOT absolute... such as when they transgress against mine. So, if there is at least one situation where rights are situational, then it stands to reason that there are others. It is in those other areas that we're trying to discuss, debate, compare and contrast, the situation.

Geez... I just love piddling around with this stuff. It's cool.

Upon one thing we can all agree, methinks. If there were a mental disorder common to us all, it's that we're all crazy about firearms, and libertarianism. :)

[labgrade]

"Rights are sometimes situational. It depends very much on circumstance.
"

No argurment, but still, more basic than that.

"With regard to the last example, if you're at home, and a thug enters, and is threatening you and your wife with a kitchen knife, then rushes at you with perceived intent to stab you, do you not have the RIGHT to shoot him, to defend yourself? So, in that case, you DO have the right to shoot someone.

"I did mention "unjustifiably."[/I] For your example, he'd be Swiss - & likely well before being "too threatening." A "thug" (demonstrated an unknown & in-house) doesn't get to define any arguement. CO law is most clear on that & so am I. In this instance, I most certainly have "the right" to defend my household.

I'm easy on this stuff (except when "yelling" at my brother-owners ;-) & apologies, folks.) .... there's One Great Law - even the Big Ten somehow goes a bit overboard when taking the concept of the Big One into proper context.

That many don't, I'd guess that we'd need some sort of "social lubricant" to get along.

Sad that it's needed, or is it?

Beats me, Rovert. Fun enough to hash it out though.

& I don't believe that I ever had the right for libelous statements, but we could disagree as to what libelous might meen. Your punching me in the face for saying something though would certainly be a violation. Even calling The Wife a naughty name would not allow me to hit you for being silly - just doesn't go to that state.

& of course I'm contradictory. I'm not completely firm in what I think anyway. ;)

Too many circumstances that would dictate what is "right, or proper" to consider perhaps. We could thrown iout each supposition & do our take on each specific, but to write a "code" would be fruitless.

I'd guess that laws are that attempt, but fall quite short as they aren't taking into account the "higher good," merely attempting to "address" a broad aspect" of what they wish to mean.

[TallPine]

Okay, I'll buy the whole basket of goods:

"I'm a Second Amendment absolutist. I believe strongly in the uninfriged right to bear arms. In spite of these strong beliefs, however, I realize that those rights aren't unlimited. There are certain reasonable restrictions placed upon right to bear arms. For example: There are reasonable laws which forbid me from using the arms that I bear to rob another person, or from using the arms that I bear to rape another person. And, as everyone knows, I can't use my right to bear arms to kill someone just because I think they need killing. These are reasonable restrictions that we, as a society, have placed upon the personal right to keep and bear arms."


Enough said ...... ? :neener:

[Mike Irwin]

Once again, even the Founding Fathers recognized that no right is absolute, especially when one of your rights impacts in a negative way on the rights of another individual.

Then it become an issue of the balancing of rights so that the burden is equally shared.

That's the entire premise behind the many court rulings that have sought to balance the rights of those protesting abortion clinics with the rights of those who wish to avail themselves of the services offered in those clinics.

Groups protesting legal abortions have claimed that it is their right, under the First Amendment, to block women from entering clinics. Another group has claimed that it is their free speech right to publish private information about employees at the clinics, as well as solicitations for the deaths of these individuals.

In that situation, whose rights are more sacred? Both groups have equal expectations of free assembly and association, privacy, free speech, etc., so the courts must treat lightly to ensure that the rights of both groups of protected.

Anyone who claims that rights are absolute and involiable isn't recognizing the fact that the exercise of rights often bring them into conflict.

[Pinned&Recessed]

Enough said ...... ? :neener:


Yup. 2nd Absolutist here too. Belt-Feds all around!!!!:D

[labgrade]

Although, Mike, I've my own thoughts on what you brought up, I can't argue your stated premise - a quandry.

(I do wish that this keyboard would allow somewhat more vocal inflection .... - would give rise to a more reasonable approach I'm taking. Somehow speech really doesn't allow a bit more understanding over & aboard a keyboard.)

I would disagree with the premise that anyone has the right to bar free movement - yell at, sure, but not bar access to.

Most of what I'm proposing is a question, if nothing more, & a hope to get at answers of I wish I knew more.

Ought to have a "continental congress" to re-hash the whole thing & hang those who disagreed. (Likely, I'd be the first on the pike. ;) )

[Drjones]

Pinned&Recessed:

Same one from GT, right?

Happy to see you here!!!

Why'd you suddenly decide to join us?

Look forward to seeing you here, at this place I call "The L.A. Forum," because this is where the magic happens... :p


"Come on in baby, da water's fine!"

:D

[Pinned&Recessed]

Why'd you suddenly decide to join us?

I'm working to Horizontally-Integrate myself into other gun forums.:D

Actually I was a long-time lurker at TFL, but was nervous to join. As you well know, some internet forums are VERY catty and, (for lack of better word), "evil" and "pissy" to newcomers. I had been burned in the past so I was a bit hesitant. Y'all are a good group though, so hey, I'm here! :) Better late than never.

[Kinsman]

Gotta jump in with the Absolutists here.

Wanna grow yer own? Go right ahead. Inject Drano into your veins? Hey, I guess those veins are yours. You say you publish that sickening manure like NAMBLA? First amendment affirms that it is your right to do it.

But the first one of you who tries to seduce a little kid, or sell him dope or Drano.....well, tall trees, short ropes and speedy public trials were meant for you.

I firmly believe that you have the right to do anything you like as long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights......and while I'm not a lawyer (and would never play one on TV), from what I have learned this is exactly what was believed by the founders of the Republic.

[alan]

I suppose the argument hinges on how one spells or defines "reasonable" as well as whom it is that is doing the defining and spelling.

Other than this, one thing is important to keep in mind. From the mouths of the anti-gunners, we have had the following: That their ultimate goal is the total proscription of firearms. Given this, now please tell me once again, all about this business of "reasonable restrictions".

As for libel and or slander, the law dies not, in any way, prevent me from making libelous or slanderous remarks to or about you. What it does do is establish that if I choose to so speak or write, that I do so at my own risk, for the offended party has the right at law, to bring suit against me.

[Drjones]

I suppose the argument hinges on how one spells or defines "reasonable" as well as whom it is that is doing the defining and spelling.

Other than this, one thing is important to keep in mind. From the mouths of the anti-gunners, we have had the following: That their ultimate goal is the total proscription of firearms. Given this, now please tell me once again, all about this business of "reasonable restrictions".


AMEN!!!

Perhaps those of you who disagree with us absolutists could answer me this:

1) How many more "reasonable" restrictions could we POSSIBLY dream up, above and beyond the 20,000 gun laws already on the books?

2) Look what years and years of agreeing to "reasonable" restrictions have gotten us. Look at where many states are today. :cuss:

[labgrade]

"But the first one of you who tries to seduce a little kid, or sell him dope or Drano.....well, tall trees, short ropes and speedy public trials were meant for you. "

Hey! Bad form!. ;)

(& very much so, please, please don't go harpin' on Kinsman here. I, at the the very least, am quite aware of the spirit intended, have no intent to do as he mentioned, nor request he get gentle attention from the mods ;) )

(& please, in the spirit intended is all I make mention ..... )

:uhoh: & :D

[Rovert]

Yeah, guys... but hold up a minute.

Those of you who are Absolutists clearly believe in punishment for transgression. And rightly so... you believe that an individual has rights, but also has responsibility to be accountable for his actions.

And, from your different replies, you obviously have illustrated that you believe the applied punishment should vary with the degree of offense. For instance, hanging is a bit severe for libel, and execution by firing squad is a bit steep for shoplifting. I mean, really... lots of teenagers have heisted a candy bar or two... but we don't cut their hands off, do we? After all, we're not barbarians.

No, what we do for punishment here in the US of A, for those who have reached adulthood, instead, is to jail people. So, follow my logic here, and let me know if I'm right.

Absolutists agree that:

Transgression of rights = Crime
Crime = Punishment of the offender
Punishment = Jail
Jail = Denial of Freedom
Freedom is one of those cherished "absolute" rights, as in life LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.

Helloooooo... see where we're going, here?

If the Absolutist philosophy is that all rights are inviolate, then you can never, ever, punish someone for transgressing against someone else's rights, because that punishment, in and of itself, is a denial of one of those inviolate rights, despite the fact that the person in question has, himself, been the transgressor.

Therefore, you Absolutists should be arriving with me at the fact that rights are NOT absolute, and that they CAN be denied to those who demonstrate inability to abide by the checks, balances, and limitations set by the rights of others.

Or, did I misunderstand someone somewhere?

The plot thickens... :D

[Drjones]

Or, did I misunderstand someone somewhere?


Yep. Sure did.

You do NOT have a right to infringe upon the rights of others.

Your rights end where mine begin.

It's that simple.

[Nightfall]

Exactly right. An individual's rights are limited only when they begin to infringe on someone else's through proven activity.

Unfortunately, this isn't the direction the USA is moving in, IMHO. The gov't decided this isn't the case and my rights only extend to the point they think I might hurt other people. Evidence of such and ‘innocent until proven guilty' on an individual basis is a dead concept it seems. :(

[Rovert]

BTW, Alan is right... we need to differentiate between CRIMINAL and CIVIL prosecution.

Dr. Jones:1) How many more "reasonable" restrictions could we POSSIBLY dream up, above and beyond the 20,000 gun laws already on the books? I think we here at THR (and TFL) agree that there is no sense of balance for the anti-gun lobby. Where we libertarians tend to be more circumspect, intelligent, and judicious about our views, the left wing just knows what's best for us, period. I was NEVER, not for ONE SECOND suggesting that we need so many gun laws. What I think we're talking about is if, in certain circumstances, the 2nd Amendment right can be prohibited to an individual, based on his specific history or character. Trust me... I live in NJ, home of the first "Smart Gun" law... nobody understands oppressive firearms legislation better than I do. Believe me when I tell you I have a pretty damned good handle on it. :banghead:

[Drjones]

Rovert;

Perhaps you could do me a small favor.

Show me where a Founding Father, or major philosopher who influenced the Fathers, even hints at the notion of a right to infringe upon the rights of others.


Thank you

[Drjones]

I think we here at THR (and TFL) agree that there is no sense of balance for the anti-gun lobby. Where we libertarians tend to be more circumspect, intelligent, and judicious about our views, the left wing just knows what's best for us, period. I was NEVER, not for ONE SECOND suggesting that we need so many gun laws. What I think we're talking about is if, in certain circumstances, the 2nd Amendment right can be prohibited to an individual, based on his specific history or character. Trust me... I live in NJ, home of the first "Smart Gun" law... nobody understands oppressive firearms legislation better than I do. Believe me when I tell you I have a pretty damned good handle on it.

Agreed.

This is just a friendly debate, no more.

:)

[Rovert]

DJ, by the way, please visit us at www.njcsd.org and jump on our bulletin board, if you needed further convincing that we're all on the same team, here!

:cuss: New Jersey bites. :fire:

[Strings]

... but wouldn't the concept of "your rights end where they MIGHT infringe on another" amount to prior restraint? And isn't "prior restraint" unconstitutional?

As for the felon arguement: I have a friend who was convicted of a non violent felony (imbezzlement). He served his time in jail, is paying back the money he stole. Once the debt is cleared, and his probation is over... he still can't vote, touch a gun, or hold public office. Meaning: his "debt to society" is paid, but he is still punished further...

[Drjones]

... but wouldn't the concept of "your rights end where they MIGHT infringe on another" amount to prior restraint?
Unless you could explain to me how shooting someone does not infringe upon their right to life, your logic is flawed.

And unless you can tell me how yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would NOT cause a stampede, and VERY likely cause at least several people to be killed and or injured in the stampede you caused, you don't have an argument.

EDIT: Furthermore, where did anyone here talk about "your rights end where they MIGHT infringe upon another"?

And isn't "prior restraint" unconstitutional? I don't know, but I sure hope so. Not that any of our leaders know what the Constitution is anyway.... :rolleyes:

As for the felon arguement: I have a friend who was convicted of a non violent felony (imbezzlement). He served his time in jail, is paying back the money he stole. Once the debt is cleared, and his probation is over... he still can't vote, touch a gun, or hold public office. Meaning: his "debt to society" is paid, but he is still punished further...

I rest my case. Thank you for posting that.

[Erik]

So, if you are alone in amovie theater can you yell "fire!" with impunity?

What if you own the theater?

[DeltaElite]

In a perfect world, rights would be absolute, but this is reality and rights are not absolute.

[Strings]

>Unless you could explain to me how shooting someone does not infringe upon their right to life, your logic is flawed.<

I was refering to Nightfall's comment above, of how the government views restrictions. Basically, me owning a gun, or smoking pot IN MY OWN HOME, or viewing pornography (again, in my own home), or what-have-you, does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. IF I were to do something that would so step, penalties would be incurred...

>And unless you can tell me how yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would NOT cause a stampede, and VERY likely cause at least several people to be killed and or injured in the stampede you caused, you don't have an argument.<

Ahh... but there, do we have restrictions (prior restraint), or do we have an "action/consequence" arrangement (it's the later, I think)...

>EDIT: Furthermore, where did anyone here talk about "your rights end where they MIGHT infringe upon another"?<

Nightfall mentioned it, and I've heard it as an arguement for the victim disarmament crowd for quite a while now...

>I don't know, but I sure hope so. Not that any of our leaders know what the Constitution is anyway....<

Theoretically, we have multiple ways of reminding them...

>I rest my case. Thank you for posting that.<

It's something that has burned me ever since it happened. He was under the control of a VERY domineering father, who gave him an allowance from his job for gas money and food at college (he still lived at home). Because of the messed up situation he was in, he saw no other option than to steal from his workplace (there is a LOOONG story behind this). The situation resulted in a light sentence, but it's still a felony, with all the repurcussions involved...

[Nightfall]

Hypothetical: Rights should end where they infringe upon another's, not before. Hypothetically then, somebody with the right equipment, money, and resources to own and safely contain a nuclear warhead could then own one... until he/she infringes upon the rights of others by setting it off and killing people or not maintaining it and hurting others with hazardous material, etc. We're back to the situation of ‘reasonable' infringement upon the Bill of Rights to help prevent horrible crimes. Now most would agree it's reasonable to not allow individuals to own nukes to keep society safe. But to many, it seems 'reasonable' to restrict the sale of semi-auto rifles because they can be used to kill a larger amount of people more quickly than a bolt action. What do we do now? If we give credit to the thought of reasonable restriction on weapons such as those which can cause large amounts of damage such as nukes, cruise missiles, etc. than we leave the can of worms open as to the definition of reasonable.

Seems it does often return to the definition of ‘reasonable'.

[Bruce in West Oz]

A brief interjection from the other side of the globe.

The argument:
You do NOT have a right to infringe upon the rights of others.
Your rights end where mine begin. is, IMHO, a very dangerous one for gun owners. It was used to disarm gun owners in Australia.

The logic?

"I have a right to be and feel safe. Your ownership of a firearm diminishes that right. Ergo, you can't have a firearm."

Sadly, the government and courts agreed.

:cuss:

Bruce

[labgrade]

& Bruce, that's exactly where it will (has) lead(s).

You must understand that most - easily 99%+ on this board are already law-abiding folks & wouldn't ingfringe on anothers' rights if paid to do so, are polite, say "Yes Ma'm & Sir."

In many ways, I could care what the rest of the world has to offer, I only want a relation, if you will, with like-mindeds.

That in itself seems to be tough enough sometimes while drawing distinctions on what we actually believe.

God help us if we cannot even agree that some of us need no restrictions placed on us as we already have a more limiting moral aspect than any legalese ever could.

"Unless you could explain to me how shooting someone does not infringe upon their right to life, your logic is flawed."

Not at all. They never had the right to actions that would cause you to shoot them in the first place. Nobody here is suggesting the willy-nilly shooting of another, but if they iitiated a certain level of force against you, you would most certainly be justified in shooting 'em w/no violation of rights whatsoever. It would be they who choose their our fate, & justifiably so.

"And unless you can tell me how yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would NOT cause a stampede, and VERY likely cause at least several people to be killed and or injured in the stampede you caused, you don't have an argument."

& if there was a fire & you didn't shout out? How many more might be killed due to your inaction?

Main reason the "crowded theater" argument doesn't hold water is the difference in circumstances - same as with most anything societal = in one instance, it likely is criminal, the other, you're a hero through the warning.

[Wildalaska]

Rights as absolutes is a nice, philosophically neat idea that is very appealing. And I think that you can hold rights as absolutes right up to the point that you allow another living breathing human being onto your desert island. After that, its all about which restrictions are proper and which are not.

Bravo!

:D :D :D :D :D

Over and over again, the 2nd amendment absolutists rant on and on from the safety of their little cyber-spaces and DO NOTHING to support their positions. Walk down the sreets with your belt feds boys, or dont you have the courage of your convictions...???

WildadnauseumadinfinitumAlaska

[Kinsman]

Over and over again, the 2nd amendment absolutists rant on and on from the safety of their little cyber-spaces and DO NOTHING to support their positions.
Yeah, I suppose that's me. Even though I talk to lots of people, I do most of my preaching to the choir. I did own a non-PRK gun when I was in SoCal. And I transported rifles and ammunition inside the cab of my pickup, together, in violation of the 'law'. Does that count?

I apologize for not taking the high road in an earlier post; I don't mean to say we should start hanging thieves....but a child molester......

[Battler]

Consider the definition of "aggression" in discussion of individual rights.

To deprive someone of their rights is in and of itself an act of aggression. Yes, even if you vote for the "state" to do it for you.


Battler.

[Chris Rhines]

Another way of looking at things -

Rights are the product of a contractual agreement between two or more parties. Said agreements can be as small-scale as the handshake purchase between neghibors of an outboard motor (thus establishing the right of party A to possess the outboard motor, and of party B to possess some money), or as large-scale as the Bill of Rights (in theory, anyway.)

With this in mind, one can see that rights are indeed absolute, even in a complicated-nay-chaotic society with millions of individual members.

- Chris

[nualle]

According to that theory: In lack of a contract, one person has no rights that another is bound to respect. You have no right to anything, including your own life, as far as I am concerned, until I contractually agree that you do (at the price, of course, of reciprocal agreement from you). Therefore, so long as I refuse to obligate myself contractually, I remain perfectly free to infringe whatever you may consider to be your rights, to the extent of my capacity.

Even Kant's categorical imperative sets the bar higher.

Once you posit the contractual basis, you cannot assume the contract. It must be explicit or it doesn't exist.

The whole premise of an individual right is that it exists without regard to the will (voluntary contract) of any other—including and especially the will of those with the real capacity to infringe it with practical impunity (e.g., a despotic monarch). It protects the minority (even the minority of one) against the tyranny of power (even the power of the majority).

[Chris Rhines]

In lack of a contract, one person has no rights that another is bound to respect.....Therefore, so long as I refuse to obligate myself contractually, I remain perfectly free to infringe whatever you may consider to be your rights, to the extent of my capacity. That's correct, but I fail to understand your objection. Look at it this way. I decide not to enter into any contractual agreements that would codify my right to life (and thus require my acceptence of the right to life of others.) And in order to demonstrate this, I go out and kill someone. But by doing so, I have just taken a psoitive action indicating that I do not accept my own right to live. Therefore, someone (we'll leave out 'who' for now) is perfectly free to end my life.

How is that any different from the enforcement of rights under any other system?

Once you posit the contractual basis, you cannot assume the contract. It must be explicit or it doesn't exist. I agree completely. Of course, an explicit contract does not need to be very elaborate in form.

The problem at present is twofold - first, an explicit contract for outlining individual rights does not exist. Second, we have placed the responsibility for enforcing contracts in the hands of the same organization that has demonstrated little regard for their sanctity in the past. Resolving this issue would require the government to give up its monoploy on contract arbitration and enforcement.

- Chris

[nualle]

But by doing so, I have just taken a psoitive action indicating that I do not accept my own right to live.
Thank you, Chris. You've just described Kant's categorical imperative.

If an action by itself *implies* the terms of a contract, then you're no longer in the realm of contract-only... you've moved into automatic reciprocity. In that case, it is the reciprocity, not the contract, that characterizes the system.

[Kinsman]

Nualle said it very clearly, and she's right.
Nobody can trample your rights; not one person, not a majority, nobody. This is the idea behind that "three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner" line. Inalienable rights are yours, courtesy of the Creator and nobody else.

Thing is, lately, rights are defined, given and taken by consensus, majority rule and judicial decree. Not lawful! Various groups are demanding rights (and groups have no rights!). Protect individual rights and everybody's covered.

[labgrade]

"Rights as absolutes is a nice, philosophically neat idea that is very appealing. And I think that you can hold rights as absolutes right up to the point that you allow another living breathing human being onto your desert island. After that, its all about which restrictions are proper and which are not."

No, it's not - it's a definitive line in the sand.

Your rights ARE absolute.

You (must I continually repeat myself?) [U]DO[/I] have absolute rights.

(Again) But, you never had the right to violate anothers' - AND, this is the whole crux here, folks.

You have your rights, while, you don't, never did, have the "right" to violate anothers' _ & that's the whole argument/discussion-point, etc. - yada. & a thing that is sadly lacking in the understanding of those who say we don't.

We never, ever had the right to violate anothers' & none of us "anarchists" are saying that we ever did.

My right to life, property, existence, does not mean that I have this in exclusion to your own self-same rights. I recognize those & am of free-will to allow it - zero, zip, restriction - you may do as you wish as long as you don't violate my own rights.

What, pray tell, is so difficult about this?

This isn't "utopia," it isn't anything radical, it is merely what this country was founded on - "life, liberty & the persuit of happiness."

Show me where this basic premise is flawed - the "basic premise," folks. That some would bastardise it, I can't argue, but the basic premise.

[labgrade]

"Rights as absolutes is a nice, philosophically neat idea that is very appealing. And I think that you can hold rights as absolutes right up to the point that you allow another living breathing human being onto your desert island. After that, its all about which restrictions are proper and which are not."

No, it's not - it's a definitive line in the sand.

Your rights ARE absolute.

You (must I continually repeat myself?) DO[/I] have absolute rights.

(Again) But, you (I) never had the right to violate anothers' - AND, this is the whole crux here, folks.

You have your rights, while, you don't, never did, have the "right" to violate anothers' & that's the whole argument/discussion-point, etc. - yada. & a thing that is sadly lacking in the understanding of those who say we don't.

We never, ever had the right to violate anothers' & none of us "rational anarchists" are saying that we ever did.

My right to life, property, existence, does not mean that I have this in exclusion to your own self-same rights. I recognize those & am of free-will to allow it - zero, zip, restriction - you may do as you wish as long as you don't violate my own rights.

What, pray tell, is so difficult about this?

This isn't "utopia," it isn't anything radical, it is merely what this country was founded on - "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness."

Show me where this basic premise is flawed - the "basic premise," folks. That some would bastardise it, I can't argue, but the basic premise remains.

"Over and over again, the 2nd amendment absolutists rant on and on from the safety of their little cyber-spaces and DO NOTHING to support their positions. Walk down the sreets with your belt feds boys, or dont you have the courage of your convictions...???"

I object, [U]in the strongest terms to WildAlsaska's wording here & request immediate moderation.

"Over & over again" (implying that we are subject to a restriction to our own views & should be restrained to a certain limitation based on his own (WA's) level of frustration - that we should be limited on a certain number of posts, while he is allowed his own continous contradictions),

"Second Amendement absolutists rant" is subject to an unreasonable attempt to use "inflamatory verbage" & "from the safety of their little cyber-spaces" entails a belittling of what each of us does - we are all of "cyber-sapce" while communicating on the internet & "while we do nothing to support their positions," while supporting our own view of the second, is simply ludicrous.

(Some) We do, we have.

Personally, I am the positional founder of the National Tyranny Response Team, I am the Colorado Second Amendemnet Sisters Governmental Affairs & Legislative Director, I do research for the furtherance of CO pro-rights legalese/directly associated with RMGO/affiliate of GOA - I put my money where my mouth is, as well as my time & I would counter WA's claim that he has "more to say" than any other who has "done more" to alleviate a curtailment of our rights than most others - not that he has no more of a say than others that likely do "more" -or at least "some."

We all have a right "to say," but his counter that "courage of convictions" is: I must note that under WildAlaska's "what you do for the Second" is sadly .... blank. His listed "conviction under" "whadaya do?" is .... sadly "I don't don't do jack." - so much for eiher updatig his profile, or his reality check for what he does to further your 2nd amendment furtherance.

Some walk the walk - some just talk whatever yammering & think they have any reason to yak it up & say they have a play in this battle.

Certainly, WA has an opinion, no question, & is gladly welcome, but to have him assume that he (through implication) has anything "involved" is silly. His own profile says he has done nothing - other than "yak it up" on the 'net he disdains.

He's done nothing to assist in your furtherance of the second, has an opinion on "rights" & your second, but has done absolutely nothing to further any of 'em ... merely a yammer ....

FWIW.

Granted, I'll grant him everything he's said & will just disagree.

BTW, just a disagreement, not a personal attack, & merely an observation of those who'd take the time to make mention of things they'd never have a clue reagards of some so
Whatever.mething they never actually participoated in .....

[Chris Rhines]

Nualle -

What contract? ;)

Remember, our theoretical anti-social type hasn't entered into a contract with anyone. He's out there on his own. There is no implicit contract because there is no contract to be implied.

- Chris

[Drjones]

A brief interjection from the other side of the globe.

The argument:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do NOT have a right to infringe upon the rights of others.
Your rights end where mine begin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is, IMHO, a very dangerous one for gun owners. It was used to disarm gun owners in Australia.

The logic?

"I have a right to be and feel safe. Your ownership of a firearm diminishes that right. Ergo, you can't have a firearm."

Sadly, the government and courts agreed.


I see your point.

If someone could point out to me where in the Constitution, BOR, or wherever, it even hints at a right to "be or feel safe," I'd appreciate it.

Hint: You may want to ignore that quote from some guy about "Trading liberty for safety." That probably won't help your case. ;)

I doubt such a claim would pass Constitutional muster in the US.

OTOH, I could see idiots using my argument against us. However, seeing as how said morons can't even read the BOR properly, they could make an argument legitimizing the holocaust. :rolleyes:

OTOH, you'd have to prove that me merely OWNING a gun somehow infringes upon your rights.

Hint: The "43 times" crap or anything resembling it is garbage, and prior restraint is unconstitutional.

[nualle]

Exactly! Once you've accepted reciprocity, you don't need any contract. Minimal reciprocity brings us right to Kan't categorical imperative. Add minimal sanity (a value on self-preservation) and you arrive at... the NAP.

No contracts, outside structures or benefactors, or anything else required.

[Chris Rhines]

Nualle -

Just a second.

(Chris goes to the fridge and gets a bottle of Newcastle-brand philosophy lubricant.)

Okay, much better. First, the NAP. The NAP is a perfect 'golden rule' for personal deportment both on the individual and macro level. The big three rights to life, liberty, and property are all easily derived from the NAP.

Problem is, from what is the NAP derived?

A handshake agreement between two individuals is a contract, not a written one, but an enforcable one nonetheless. It's simple to derive the sanctity of contract from a single such example (muh less millions upon billions.) And from the right to free exchange of goods, comes... the NAP. Different way of getting to the same place, but it requires no implication of motive.

- Chris

[Justin Moore]

What, pray tell, is so difficult about this?

Nothing, unless you went to public school ;)

[nualle]

Interesting argument, Chris.
A handshake agreement between two individuals is a contract, not a written one, but an enforcable one nonetheless.
I disagree. It's easy to mistake for one because the currently in-vogue legal system has chosen to interpret it as such (for reasons traceable to who wrote that system). But at its basic level, it's just a friendly gesture.

And from the right to free exchange of goods, comes... the NAP.
Here, I think, is our basic difference in perspective. I think you've got a serious case of cart-before-horse.

Exchanging goods is not what we are, it's one among many interpersonal things we do. The NAP, which governs all interpersonal actions (for those who assent to it), has to precede and exceed contract in order to govern it.

This is not a problem; we have plenty of evidence to support that it does. A sense of reciprocity far precedes any attempt to exchange goods in any modern, commercial sense. More crucially, balanced exchange of gifts was, for a very long time, an important means both of moving stuff around and of cementing personal and inter-group relationships—a precisely non-modern, non-commercialistic ethic for an economy.

Human interaction is not about economics, it includes economics. The ethics upon which we base our behavior is deeper, both logically and psychologically. That basis is reciprocity. That's all the NAP requires.

[Strings]

I've had the "infringe on my right to feel safe" arguement used against me, and it's the easiest to puncture (and without going to the Constitution). Here's some simple variations to throw back at it:

"Well... there are gay men who rape straights. So, someone being openly gay infringes..."

"Christians used to burn pagans at the stake. So, you practicing your faith infringes..."

"Large numbers of violent felons listen to rap. So, you playing that new IceT CD infringes..."

"I was bit by a dog when I was a kid, so you havng a dog infringes..."

See? It's the easiest arguement to fight, and you can fight it in a way that hits them where it counts (on an emotional level". EVERYONE belongs to some "group" (in the examples, you have gays, Christians, rap listeners, and dog owners), and there is slmost no "group" which doesn't have something you can use against it in this fashion...

Not that I think any of these things should be outlawed, but it DOES get the point across...

[BogBabe]

Hunter Rose, you are so right.

There's nothing wrong with feelings, per se. But anytime we allow people's feelings to dictate public policy (i.e., law, i.e., the force of government), we have thrown away all restraint and reason. There is no limit to feelings -- to limit to what might make anyone feel safe, or feel any other way they want to feel.

Anyone can feel -- and is entitled to feel -- absolutely any way they prefer to, about anything at all.

But feelings cannot be permitted to rule in the legal arena. Not in 2A issues, nor anywhere else.

[Safety First]

There are very good points on each side of this issue and I am enjoying the thought process with each one of these post..and I am quite not sure which side of the issue I would really stand.But as I am reading the various post, a question comes to my mind.
Would I walk into a mental institution and hand a loaded gun to someone with a known history of violence and wait around to see what they do or do not do with the gun? Me thinks not?
While you can not deny that the 2nd does not make any distinction, it seems that there have to be a least some restrctions to protect us from those who have shown that they are a threat to society with a weapon. As for a felon who has not committed a violent crime, I completely come down on the side of he/she not losing their 2nd rights, that law needs repealing. But again this discussion is one of the better ones I have seen here as it does evoke some very good thoughts and opinions about the restrictions the govt has placed on us regarding the 2nd. keep it up, the different opinions here offer all of us food for thought...

[Strings]

THANKS, BogBabe! I was almost afraid I would offend someone with that post, but it IS a very effective of arguing against that...

Lloyd: in your example, the mental patient in question has already shown that they can't be trusted, so denying them their 2A rights doesn't show prior restraint...