Ron 7 #201 July 14, 2009 QuoteAh. In that case, you are 100% wrong. If you think that... you might want to change your password. Someone else MUST be using you screen name then. QuoteIf it was sensitive US information and divulging it would greatly endanger others (say, nuclear launch codes) yes. Otherwise no. And you somehow make the leap that nuclear launch codes are the same as some legal citizen having a pistol on him for self defense? QuoteIf I am killing people with a rifle from a clock tower, then yes, police could effectively execute me without providing me with an opportunity to face my accuser. That is not an execution, and you know it. So once arrested, would you be fine with them putting a bullet in your head? I mean they KNOW you are guilty and all. QuoteCounter question - if you saw a man wound two men with a knife, kill a third, and was about to kill a fourth, and you had a gun, would you not shoot him until he had an opportunity to face the man he wounded? Or would you kill him and deprive him of his rights? Answered above."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #202 July 14, 2009 >And you somehow make the leap that nuclear launch codes are the same as >some legal citizen having a pistol on him for self defense? Nope. You asked me if free speech can ever be abridged for the greater good of society. The answer (which you agree to, apparently) is yes. >That is not an execution, and you know it. ?? I said nothing about the legality of an execution. You asked if there were cases where the accused did NOT have a right to confront their accuser. Again, you agree that the answer is yes, and indeed admit that you would kill someone without letting them face their accuser if you thought it was a good idea. So you seem fine with depriving people of their rights under certain conditions. Any other questions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #203 July 14, 2009 QuoteSo you seem fine with depriving people of their rights under certain conditions. Any other questions? Sure do you know there is a difference between a Govt action and a private action? It does not seem you do."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #204 July 14, 2009 >Sure do you know there is a difference between a Govt action and a private >action? Yes, there is. We've agreed that it is OK to, in some cases, abridge the rights given under the Constitution. You have agreed with me that it's OK to limit someone's right of free speech if that free speech involves a serious and direct threat to the US (like discovering and revealing nuclear launch codes.) You have agreed with me that it's OK to limit someone's right (even his right to life) if you feel he is an imminent threat to others (like a guy with a knife stabbing people.) One is a government action, one is a private action. Next question? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #205 July 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteThis is where personal opinion comes into play. No more like uninformed fear. I'll ask again : So to prevent swearing, would you be OK with making people wear gags? Your comparison is so silly, you get a silly answer. If you truly think those two are the same, than I don't think I can communicate effectively with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #206 July 14, 2009 Here is a hint, they are both rights and used wrongly they can both take the lives of innocent victims. Used responsibly they can protect us and provide freedom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #207 July 14, 2009 And both have restrictions placed on them. In one case one cannot use all the words one may want to, in the other one cannot buy all the guns one may want to. Sounds pretty similar to me. The gag is equivalent to tieing the hands behind the back to make shooting harder, therfore silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #208 July 14, 2009 QuoteAnd both have restrictions placed on them. In one case one cannot use all the words one may want to, in the other one cannot buy all the guns one may want to. Sounds pretty similar to me. The gag is equivalent to tieing the hands behind the back to make shooting harder, therfore silly. No. You can yell "Fire" anytime you want - you only face consequences if someone is hurt due to you saying it. The gun ban is like the gag - prior restraint when no harm has been caused.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #209 July 15, 2009 QuoteSo, no... you didn't answer a single thing. I did, but perhaps my explanation was too complicated for some readers to understand. Please forgive me and allow me to simplify. If a passenger had a pistol that day, chances are nothing would have changed, under the premise that people do not commit violent acts simply because they have guns. OTOH, if you want to argue that guns do indeed cause violence, then one could infer from that premise that the outcome would have been different. (Personally, I'm not of the opinion that guns cause violence.) QuoteQuoteThe term for ordinary citizens who are out to neutralize threats is vigilante. Quit trying to use emotional arguments. Providing a definition is hardly an emotional argument. QuoteWe are discussing the right to keep arms for self defense, not the right to keep arms to wage a war against anything. You are the one that brought up federal air marshals, cops, and Secret Service agents, not me. Those folks are not in the business of self defense, they are in the business of threat neutralization. There is a big difference. Self defense involves actions required to escape a threat. Self defense does not imply threat neutralization unless other reasonable options for escaping the threat are not available. Threat neutralization is the purview of professionals, not, generally, civilians. QuoteThey have also said in Miller that military type weapons are protected.... They also said in Heller that pistols are protected. They also said in Heller, "What is reasonable about a Ban"--- Roberts. Yet, you still approve of bans when you want. Do you even read posts prior to replying? Perhaps you'd care to link to anywhere that I said I support bans. What I said was that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that is not unlimited, as interpreted and explicitly stated by the SCOTUS. I also said that the SCOTUS, not you or I, has the final say w/r/t interpreting US law, including the Constitution. That power was granted to the SCOTUS by the Constitution. You do recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, do you not?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #210 July 15, 2009 QuoteNo. You can yell "Fire" anytime you want - you only face consequences if someone is hurt due to you saying it. The gun ban is like the gag - prior restraint when no harm has been caused. Not at all. Even with a ban you are free to keep and carry a gun. You only face the consequences if you brandish or use it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #211 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteNo. You can yell "Fire" anytime you want - you only face consequences if someone is hurt due to you saying it. The gun ban is like the gag - prior restraint when no harm has been caused. Not at all. Even with a ban you are free to keep and carry a gun. You only face the consequences if you brandish or use it. And if you cannot buy one BECAUSE of the ban? (See DC, Chicago, NYC)Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #212 July 15, 2009 QuoteAnd if you cannot buy one BECAUSE of the ban? (See DC, Chicago, NYC) The obvious solution would be to buy it in a different location.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #213 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd if you cannot buy one BECAUSE of the ban? (See DC, Chicago, NYC) The obvious solution would be to buy it in a different location. Where? Manny's discount gun trunk (trunk of his car, that is) down at the corner of 5th and Main? We're talking about the law abiding, not criminals.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #214 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd if you cannot buy one BECAUSE of the ban? (See DC, Chicago, NYC) The obvious solution would be to buy it in a different location. Where? Manny's discount gun trunk (trunk of his car, that is) down at the corner of 5th and Main? As long as you're willing to face the consequences if you get caught, you are free to buy whatever guns you choose.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #215 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd if you cannot buy one BECAUSE of the ban? (See DC, Chicago, NYC) The obvious solution would be to buy it in a different location. Where? Manny's discount gun trunk (trunk of his car, that is) down at the corner of 5th and Main? As long as you're willing to face the consequences if you get caught, you are free to buy whatever guns you choose. We're talking about the law abiding....hardly the people who would be buying illegal guns. Your argument is rapidly acquiring a bovine smell...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #216 July 15, 2009 QuoteWe're talking about the law abiding....hardly the people who would be buying illegal guns. So, are you acknowledging that free speech rights are abridged when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, or are you defending a double standard?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #217 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteWe're talking about the law abiding....hardly the people who would be buying illegal guns. So, are you acknowledging that free speech rights are abridged when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, or are you defending a double standard? If you can show the equivalent prior restraint for free speech, certainly. So far, you haven't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #218 July 15, 2009 QuoteIf you can show the equivalent prior restraint for free speech, certainly. So far, you haven't. According to Black's Law Dictionary (seventh edition): prior restraint. A governmental restriction on speech or publication before its actual expression. • Prior restraints violate the First Amendment unless the speech is obscene, is defamatory, or creates a clear and present danger to society. Please explain how prior restraint is relevant to the discussion on gun legislation. Have you been forbidden to talk about guns?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #219 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you can show the equivalent prior restraint for free speech, certainly. So far, you haven't. According to Black's Law Dictionary (seventh edition): prior restraint. A governmental restriction on speech or publication before its actual expression. • Prior restraints violate the First Amendment unless the speech is obscene, is defamatory, or creates a clear and present danger to society. Please explain how prior restraint is relevant to the discussion on gun legislation. Have you been forbidden to talk about guns? You can't argue the concept, so you argue the terminology? Why don't you tell ME what the equivalent term would be, then, so we can get past the usual semantics game bullshit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #220 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd if you cannot buy one BECAUSE of the ban? (See DC, Chicago, NYC) The obvious solution would be to buy it in a different location. Where? Manny's discount gun trunk (trunk of his car, that is) down at the corner of 5th and Main? As long as you're willing to face the consequences if you get caught, you are free to buy whatever guns you choose. This thread fell to shit a while ago, so perhaps this reasoning of your's actually makes sense. Somehow it's still a freedom even if you'll be put in jail for a couple years for doing it. Nah, still smells like bullshit. But i'll admit I've been glossing over the posts for the past 3 or 4 days because you guys can't write a succinct message with any focus. (all of you guys, not just the gun hating dweebs) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #221 July 15, 2009 QuoteI did, but perhaps my explanation was too complicated for some readers to understand. Oh, please... you didn't answer and now you are trying to act like anyone that didn't get you was not smart enough to get it. Maybe your explanation was just flat out poor, or you just didn't answer. QuoteIf a passenger had a pistol that day, chances are nothing would have changed, under the premise that people do not commit violent acts simply because they have guns. And yet study after study shows that when people finally realize that their life is in danger, they act. When they have the means to fight back, they act faster. QuoteOTOH, if you want to argue that guns do indeed cause violence, then one could infer from that premise that the outcome would have been different. Fallacy of false dilemma. You claim that there are only two options, when more exist. And the fallacy of complex question. You think that answering either way will destroy my position... But you have tried to make it so I can only answer in one of your two ways. Nice try however. The truth is I think a Gun is a tool. And that most people don't want to hurt anyone and giving them a gun will not change that... BUT, when faced with a threat they will defend themselves. QuoteProviding a definition is hardly an emotional argument. When you attempt to tie that definition to a negative act it sure is. The REAL definition of vigilante says nothing about ordinary citizens out to "neutralize threats". Quotea member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice "Doer of justice" does not equal "neutralize threats". QuoteYou are the one that brought up federal air marshals, cops, and Secret Service agents, not me. Simply because you incorrectly assumed that a gun would not have made any difference and that anyone that needed a gun to fight off hijackers could do the same with improvised weapons. If that were true, then FAM's would not be given guns. FFDO's would not be given guns. And the FFDO are pure self defense situations. QuoteYou do recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, do you not? I do, it seems you don't."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #222 July 15, 2009 QuoteYour comparison is so silly, you get a silly answer. If you truly think those two are the same, than I don't think I can communicate effectively with you. Got it, you are unwilling to answer since you know it will destroy your position."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #223 July 15, 2009 QuoteWe've agreed that it is OK to, in some cases, abridge the rights given under the Constitution And you have admitted to comparing having nuclear launch codes to an individual owning a gun."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #224 July 15, 2009 QuoteNot at all. Even with a ban you are free to keep and carry a gun. You only face the consequences if you brandish or use it. In one you get in trouble for the act everywhere, the other just the ownership in some places. That would be like arresting someone because they *could* yell fire in a crowded theater... Not because they did. Not even close to the same."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #225 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteYour comparison is so silly, you get a silly answer. If you truly think those two are the same, than I don't think I can communicate effectively with you. Got it, you are unwilling to answer since you know it will destroy your position. Irony score 10/10... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
