Time for 1st Amendment restrictions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t see the government provision in that paragraph or chapter. Maybe some do. Neither does it specifically prohibit the lawful defense of innocent human life by individuals.

Sadly, the entire point of this thread was for those who have had a hissy fit and left. Our media addicted culture has slowly been programmed to disregard their horror at graphic violence. It is virtually everywhere. So, when it all begins to blow up off-screen, we seek to shred the freedoms that were purchased at a very high cost in blood?

This argument has to do with the human heart deciding to murder. To read more into it than that is to miss the point entirely.

Where did we get so many murderers? In nearly all cases, they obtained the guns/bombs/knives/vehicles after they consciously decided to murder. Shouldn’t it be stopped at that point, if possible since nearly all have given indication, some plainly spelled their plans out and nothing was done?

The purpose and intent of the government (of the people, etc.) is to guarantee freedoms, not to needlessly restrict or eliminate them.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
True, but the inalienable rights are acknowledged as coming from Whom ?
Click to expand...
That kind of begs the question of what inalienable rights are, doesn’t? Jefferson does not start with a “G”, you know. God’s version is quite different that America’s.
 
po18guy said:
“LeafByNiggle said:
What the parody fails to recognize is that free speech is already restricted by things like libel and slander laws. So a more nuanced observation would be that gun rights can be restricted under the 2nd amendment just as free speech is restricted under the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...
Your attempt at humor in the first post was clever and original, I’ll give you that. Just leave it at that.

But now if you insist on belaboring the point that is already flawed as a serious argument, this is going to lead to a very dry and humorless discussion on analogies and their limitations.

Guns can be kept in a closet and you still have gun rights because the gun is available if you need it. But free speech is meaningless if it has to be kept in a closet or is otherwise “put in storage.” Free speech only makes sense if one is free to speak. So there is nothing analogous in free speech to owning guns without misusing them, therefore your comparison of guns and speech regarding misuse is flawed. The fact remains that the 1st amendment is not sacrosanct. It has limitations - libel and slander, as well the iconic “yelling fire in a crowed theater.” Repeat that until you understand: “The 1st amendment is not sacrosanct.” Similarly, the 2nd amendment is not sacrosanct. It is maintained along with certain restrictions on guns. Existing forms of gun control do not violate the 2nd amendment. That includes provisions about where you can store guns. When you say “misuse of weapons is punished” I think you are implying that “misuse” is limited to firing a gun in the commission of a crime. But that is too limiting. Misuse of a gun can also mean carrying it where it is not allowed, or leaving it out where a child could fire it. These are infractions that can be punishable even if the gun is not fired. That is called gun control. And you’re right - it is punished, and rightly so.

You cannot win this argument with arguments about absolutes. Your best bet, if you really want to argue against gun control, is to argue on the basis of practical considerations: effectiveness of laws, costs of implementing laws, relative consequences of gun control laws. That’s what I would do if I were you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
po18guy said:
Seriously, what law, what ordinance, what rule or regulation is going to expunge murder from the human heart?
Click to expand...
Let us suppose that no such rule or regulation expunges murder from the human heart. Do you suppose from that assumption that no rule or regulation is useful in preventing murders? Of course not. Most laws put limits on what human nature sometimes wants to do. We don’t expect laws to change the human heart. But we do expect laws to act as a deterrent to a rational mind to prevent the individual from doing what his possibly twisted heart wants him to do. So your question is irrelevant.
Yet progressives seem to think that the impossible task of eliminating material objects will magically change the human heart.
Click to expand...
You don’t get to say what progressives think unless you are a progressive.
I stand to be corrected, but in the progressive mind, freedom seems to be simply too risky.
Click to expand...
That depends on which freedom you mean.
 
Melissa said:
I’ve asked this question before, and I have never gotten an answer to this question from a gun-grabber: Since I work in a gun free zone (hospital, this is state law where I am), why must I take annual training on how to respond to an active shooter event?
Click to expand...
Because it is possible someone may violate the law an start shooting. Possible, but not as likely as if there were no restrictions.
And the follow up: if we admit that “gun free zones” don’t keep out guns in the hands of criminals (who, almost by definition, don’t care what the law says), then why is disarming me, a law-abiding citizen, such a good idea?
Click to expand...
First of all, it is false to say that a criminal does not care what the law says. A criminal does care, and is often constrained in his behavior over fear of getting caught and being prosecuted. Secondly, it is a good idea to disarm you because there is no practical way to know for sure who has violent intentions and who is just carrying a gun for protection. So the only practical way to limit criminal use of a gun is the restrict everyone (except for designated guards what are exempt from the rule.)
 
po18guy said:
CCC2265. Howz that?
Click to expand...
Let’s look at CCC2265 in full:
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. In other words, the police, or military, or official guards. This passage is perfectly compatible with all existing forms of gun control in the US.
Click to expand...
As you can see, this passage says nothing about guns for everyone, or the right to own them, or the right to carry them. If you think it does imply such a right, please find just one Catholic theologian who gives that interpretation about guns for civilians specifically. I will also note that this passage refers to “one who is responsible for the lives of others” and “those who legitimately hold authority” - In other words, police, military, or official guards.
 
Last edited:
So, one wonders, why was the right specified in the first place? Regardless of whence it came? Do you oppose freedom on a general basis? OK, which freedoms are simply too dangerous? No? Who decides the freedoms? The Church has clearly spoken, but progressives tacitly or covertly hate the Church and her teachings, so oppose those freedoms.

This 20th/21st century mania for blaming physical objects and punishing the innocent is childish at least, dangerous at worst. Social injustice.
 
Humor? Parody?

How nicely you smile as you marginalize those who have the temerity to disagree with you!

The progressive shell game of switching blame from murderers/culture of death to the law abiding would have been surreal in our parent’s time.

Now it is “conventional wisdom.” I don’t cherry pick freedoms - and as we know, some of them are horribly abused. Those abusers, i.e. Larry Flynt (RIP) typically hide behind the first amendment, as no one can murder and hide behind the second. The abusers of the first amendment can advocate for every manner of illegality and immorality while wrapped in that same first amendment.

Oh, and your “practical” objections advice? Radical progressive ideologues are not persuaded by anything or anyone outside of themselves and their emotions. Fact. They are a law unto themselves - and therein lies the danger to freedom and future. Brave new world indeed.

Beam me up, Mr. Scott!
 
No less an authority than yourself says so. I will not claim that your responses are nonsensical - only that I do not find solid logic or sense in them. I see a carefully crafted or even programmed-in recipe for the death of a vital freedom. And, why so sensitive to the term progressive, unless you have just outed yourself? Would you bristle at a condemnation of the KKK if not sympathetic to them?
 
po18guy said:
So, one wonders, why was the right specified in the first place? Regardless of whence it came?
Click to expand...
I assume you are still referring to the 2nd amendment. At the time that the 2nd amendment was written, the US had no permanent professional army like we have today. Instead we had 13 separate state militias. In addition to protecting the state from foreign invaders, the state militias in states like Georgia, Virginia, and the Carolinas used their state militias to capture escaped slaves and especially to put down any possible slave revolt. They feared slave revolts with good reason. Consider the Stono Rebelion of 1739. They fought the English for nearly a week before they were put down by the colonists. Slaves outnumbered free men and so the slave states were afraid that if their militias were not protected in the Constitution, the federal government might raise a standing army and disband the militias. So they insisted on the 2nd amendment to ensure that their militias remained armed. The Heller decision came much later and got it wrong in the opinion of many.
Do you oppose freedom on a general basis? OK, which freedoms are simply too dangerous? No? Who decides the freedoms?
Click to expand...
Legitmate authority acting for the common good. This term appears prominently in the Catechism.
The Church has clearly spoken, but progressives tacitly or covertly hate the Church and her teachings, so oppose those freedoms.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming the Church has clearly spoken about the freedoms involved in owning and carrying a gun? That is definitely not true.
 
po18guy said:
No less an authority than yourself says so.
Click to expand...
ambiguous reference. Says what?
I will not claim that your responses are nonsensical - only that I do not find solid logic or sense in them. I see a carefully crafted or even programmed-in recipe for the death of a vital freedom. And, why so sensitive to the term progressive
Click to expand...
I am sensitive any time anyone says they know what someone else thinks without asking that person what they think. It has nothing to do with progressives per se. I also object when liberals say they absolutely know what conservatives think. It is just arrogant to claim to know what is in someone else’s mind. Oh, and yes, in some circles I am considered a progressive. In other circles I am considered a conservative.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
First of all, it is false to say that a criminal does not care what the law says. A criminal does care, and is often constrained in his behavior over fear of getting caught and being prosecuted. Secondly, it is a good idea to disarm you because there is no practical way to know for sure who has violent intentions and who is just carrying a gun for protection. So the only practical way to limit criminal use of a gun is the restrict everyone (except for designated guards what are exempt from the rule.)
Click to expand...
Wrong! Abosolutely wrong! There is one reason, and one reason only, to disarm me–a preference for the criminal to be the only one with weapons.

Again, the criminal does not care what the law says. If he cared, he would not be a criminal, because he’d actually obey the law. He does care about the odds of getting caught, which is why criminals tend to choose the easiest targets.

So the question remains unanswered as to why a gun free zone is of any use, since the only people who will abide by such a gun free zone are the law-abiding. Your rationale is not rational. There is no legitimate reason to disarm me to “limit criminal use” of guns, because disarming me does diddlysquat to limit criminal activity.
 
po18guy said:
How nicely you smile as you marginalize those who have the temerity to disagree with you!
Click to expand...
I didn’t marginalize you. I correctly identified your posting as parody (which, by the way, was pretty good as parodies go).
The progressive shell game of switching blame from murderers/culture of death to the law abiding would have been surreal in our parent’s time.
Click to expand...
I don’t get how anyone is switching blame as you say.
Oh, and your “practical” objections advice? Radical progressive ideologues are not persuaded by anything or anyone outside of themselves and their emotions. Fact. They are a law unto themselves - and therein lies the danger to freedom and future. Brave new world indeed.
Click to expand...
My advice was sincere. I’m sorry you didn’t take it that way. You really should get back to discussing the issues and not speculating on the character the people you are debating with. Back when we had moderators, that’s what they used to say all the time. (Please bring back the moderators!)
 
Melissa said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
First of all, it is false to say that a criminal does not care what the law says. A criminal does care, and is often constrained in his behavior over fear of getting caught and being prosecuted. Secondly, it is a good idea to disarm you because there is no practical way to know for sure who has violent intentions and who is just carrying a gun for protection. So the only practical way to limit criminal use of a gun is the restrict everyone (except for designated guards what are exempt from the rule.)
Click to expand...
Wrong! Abosolutely wrong! There is one reason, and one reason only, to disarm me–a preference for the criminal to be the only one with weapons.
Click to expand...
That explanation doesn’t not pass the common sense smell test. What possible reason would there be for your hospital administration or the US government to prefer to have criminals with weapons around a hospital?
Again, the criminal does not care what the law says.
Click to expand...
Again, the criminal is often constrained by fear even if he does not intrinsically love the law.
He does care about the odds of getting caught, which is why criminals tend to choose the easiest targets.
Click to expand...
A shooting in a hospital would probably not be based on a criminal’s intent on doing a random mass shooting. It would more likely be the result of a personal animosity toward a particular person, like a specific patient, or a doctor. In that case the there is not a lot of latitude in “choosing a target.” The target was already chosen by the external circumstances. If you want to make the hospital a not so easy target, then make armed guards more visible. I’m sure you already have some. Hire more. That would be a deterrent. But allowing you the option of bringing your gun to work would not even be a blip on the radar of a criminal.
So the question remains unanswered as to why a gun free zone is of any use, since the only people who will abide by such a gun free zone are the law-abiding.
Click to expand...
Fear of being caught with a gun in a gun-free zone will deter some of the criminals. Getting rid of the gun-free zone will not add anything to the deterrent value.
Your rationale is not rational. There is no legitimate reason to disarm me to “limit criminal use” of guns, because disarming me does diddlysquat to limit criminal activity.
Click to expand...
Unless you happen to be the criminal, in which case it does help to disarm you. You know you are not the criminal, but they don’t.
 
Yes indeed, the First Amendment already has restrictions. So why not more restrictions for the Second Amendment? Neither amendment is immune. Not the OP’s intent, but probably yours? I think the key to both amendments is how much and what kind of restrictions and how much and what kind of individual liberties are appropriate? Just as in the case of moral freedom, secular freedom brings with it certain responsibilities for the individual as well as the State. It’s a balancing act without a net. And why shouldn’t it be? We have not yet ironed out all the details of our democratic government, a fact which reveals that our democracy and its Constitution are a living, vital work in progress rather than a fixed, immutable institution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top