Gun control debate (merged)

#19,977
#19,977
hog88 said:
Over time it will unless it's fought tooth and nail at every turn.
Click to expand...
Are these appropriate limits?

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
 
#19,979
#19,979
luthervol said:
Are these appropriate limits?

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Click to expand...

Let's shorten that. Speech that harms/damages others.

BTW where did you copy that from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#19,980
#19,980
OrangeTsar said:
Once the second is gone, the others will collapse in the blink of an eye
Click to expand...
No one wants to do away with the second amendment unless the choices are......interpret it the way I do, or get rid of it.
That's a pretty stupid position to take and the only true danger.
 
#19,981
#19,981
luthervol said:
No one wants to do away with the second amendment unless the choices are......interpret it the way I do, or get rid of it.
That's a pretty stupid position to take and the only true danger.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t need any interpretation. All the context was laid out when it was written.
 
#19,983
#19,983
hog88 said:
Let's shorten that. Speech that harms/damages others.

BTW where did you copy that from?
Click to expand...
You understand that what constitutes "speech that harms/damages others" is debatable and will ultimately have to be decided by law or legal rulings.
 
#19,984
#19,984
luthervol said:
You understand that what constitutes "speech that harms/damages others" is debatable and will ultimately have to be decided by law or legal rulings.
Click to expand...

No, it's not really debatable on a macro scale. Hate speech hurts no one, slander does. Yelling fire in a crowded theater for the purpose of creating chaos hurts others while lying/spreading dis-misinformation online does not. Banning speech on a broad definition is a bad idea, if someones speech crosses a line it should be dealt with on an individual basis in civil or criminal court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and 85SugarVol
#19,985
#19,985
hog88 said:
No, it's not really debatable on a macro scale. Hate speech hurts no one, slander does. Yelling fire in a crowded theater for the purpose of creating chaos hurts others while lying/spreading dis-misinformation online does not. Banning speech on a broad definition is a bad idea, if someones speech crosses a line it should be dealt with on an individual basis in civil or criminal court.
Click to expand...
I’m all for addressing damaging speech via civil action (if warranted).
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and hog88
#19,986
#19,986
luthervol said:
No one wants to do away with the second amendment unless the choices are......interpret it the way I do, or get rid of it.
That's a pretty stupid position to take and the only true danger.
Click to expand...
„Shall not be infringed“ isn’t exactly subject to multiple interpretations. And before you start with the well regulated militia nonsense. That is not part of the operational conclusion of the amendment. It is just additional context
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#19,987
#19,987
luthervol said:
You understand that what constitutes "speech that harms/damages others" is debatable and will ultimately have to be decided by law or legal rulings.
Click to expand...
Show me in the constitution where a distinction is made between „free speech“ and „hate speech“. There is none. Speech that doesn’t threaten directly can harm or damage no one. The constitution doesn’t protect against hurt feelings and any US judge that tries to make such a ruling should be impeached immediately
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricStratton
#19,990
#19,990
OrangeTsar said:
„Shall not be infringed“ isn’t exactly subject to multiple interpretations. And before you start with the well regulated militia nonsense. That is not part of the operational conclusion of the amendment. It is just additional context
Click to expand...
lol....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Certainly has plenty of room for interpretation,
Not allowing you to purchase 5 guns at one time is IN NO WAY infringing on your right to keep and bear arms.

You may interpret it differently, but I think your interpretation is dead wrong and a bastardization of the true intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricStratton
#19,991
#19,991
luthervol said:
lol....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Certainly has plenty of room for interpretation,
Not allowing you to purchase 5 guns at one time is IN NO WAY infringing on your right to keep and bear arms.

You may interpret it differently, but I think your interpretation is dead wrong and a bastardization of the true intent.
Click to expand...

Ohhh man I have got to know what you think their true intent was.
 
#19,992
#19,992
OrangeTsar said:
Show me in the constitution where a distinction is made between „free speech“ and „hate speech“. There is none. Speech that doesn’t threaten directly can harm or damage no one. The constitution doesn’t protect against hurt feelings and any US judge that tries to make such a ruling should be impeached immediately
Click to expand...
So which do you disagree with?

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising.
 
#19,997
#19,997
luthervol said:
lol....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Certainly has plenty of room for interpretation,
Not allowing you to purchase 5 guns at one time is IN NO WAY infringing on your right to keep and bear arms.

You may interpret it differently, but I think your interpretation is dead wrong and a bastardization of the true intent.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. I can not bear the arms I can not buy due to government restrictions. Nor can I keep them.

Fixed for accuracy. Just because I cant afford every gun out there doesnt mean my Rught is restricted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#19,999
#19,999
luthervol said:
I would never try to infringe them. That's why I always add in rational and reasonable.
I'm a strong believer in a person's right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

You are neither rational or reasonable. Any restriction you place on bearing arms is an infringement.
 
#20,000
#20,000
luthervol said:
lol....the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Certainly has plenty of room for interpretation,
Not allowing you to purchase 5 guns at one time is IN NO WAY infringing on your right to keep and bear arms.

You may interpret it differently, but I think your interpretation is dead wrong and a bastardization of the true intent.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is amend it to what you think it means . Thank goodness our FFs gave us a way to do that fairly , and without having to interpret what they meant about amending what we didn’t like .
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top