Reid determined to have vote on gun control measures, even if Republicans filibuster

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Hopechest,

What about free speech and free press? The only times that I can think of where certain those come into question is libel and slander, but that's a civil dispute between two private parties, not a criminal offense.




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I think primarily that you are misinterpreting the text of the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment is about the rights that are NOT enumerated in the constitution. For instance the congress cannot tell the people which side they must lay on when they sleep. As silly as that sounds, it is the very core of the 9th amendment.

Conversely the government cannot violate rights the people retain for themselves insofar as what arms and speech we choose to use.

Congress does not have a blank check on legislation. You probably think the General Welfare Clause is a blank check. It is not. Perhaps a little research on the Necessary and Proper clause would illuminate the issue for you.

The 2nd Amendment is open for the people, not for the government to do what it pleases.


Well actually they do have a blank check when it comes to legislation as long as it is not in direct violation of the Constitution or infringing on another branch of the government.

When there is a debate about their laws than it goes through the court system up to the Supreme Court until a decision is made. Nothing can stop the Congress from passing a law saying which side you must sleep on.

They fully have that authority however we know they won't because it will not stand up in court.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Galvatron
Hopechest,

What about free speech and free press? The only times that I can think of where certain those come into question is libel and slander, but that's a civil dispute between two private parties, not a criminal offense.


What about them?

You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater even though it violates your first amendment right. No right is guaranteed to be unconditional.

Ever.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Regulation is infringement



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
That's the thing, only if it violates the rights of others, which falls in line with the Isaac Asimov analogy.

My question was more related to the types of speech and media of speech. Internet forum, telephone, instant message, email, etc.

These kinds of interactions aren't explicitly stated in the first amendment. Would you say the congress has the power to regulate them, or do you think the congress should have the authority to regulate them based on your interpretation of implied powers and how it relates to the 2nd amendment?

edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Hopechest,

Please read up on various civilization's notion of the term rights throughout history. You will find that natural rights, as opposed to legal rights or privileges are distinctly different, the primary difference is that natural rights are unconditional. Isn't the constitution about natural rights wherever the people are mentioned? Natural rights are fairly well defined for US citizens.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Galvatron
Hopechest,

What about free speech and free press? The only times that I can think of where certain those come into question is libel and slander, but that's a civil dispute between two private parties, not a criminal offense.


What about them?

You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater even though it violates your first amendment right. No right is guaranteed to be unconditional.

Ever.


Actually, this is not true. Yelling fire in a crowded theather is not "illegal" . . . go ahead, try it some time. Your right to that speech is not "limited"

Where that idea comes from is that you cannot claim "free speech" as a defense to the violation of others rights. Meaning, if there were to be a panic, you would still be liable for the damages or injuries caused. You committed a crime and cannot invoke your rights as a defense.

The same would be true if you murdered another person with a gun . . . you cannot claim 2nd rights as a defense.

Furthermore, the comments made by Holmes in the Shenck case are not part of the decision, but simply commentary on the decision. You are also leaving out the world "falsely", which is paramount to this notion.


The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

For some more quick reading on this "notion"
FIRE!!
edit on 4/9/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Galvatron
That's the thing, only if it violates the rights of others, which falls in line with the Isaac Asimov analogy.

My question was more related to the types of speech and media of speech. Internet forum, telephone, instant message, email, etc.

These kinds of interactions aren't explicitly stated in the first amendment. Would you say the congress has the power to regulate them, or do you think the congress should have the authority to regulate them based on your interpretation of implied powers and how it relates to the 2nd amendment?

edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


Absolutely they have the power to regulate them and they do and they are upheld by the Supreme Court. Whether I agree with it or not is not relevant, but they are allowed to and the Supreme Court says its constitutional. I believe that where commerce comes in that Congress does have the right to regulate, simply due to the problems it would create without a national law.

In areas such as internet forums, or the social media I feel the government should stay out of it. Its a far more complicated subject to debate than I think we have time for however.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Galvatron
Hopechest,

Please read up on various civilization's notion of the term rights throughout history. You will find that natural rights, as opposed to legal rights or privileges are distinctly different, the primary difference is that natural rights are unconditional. Isn't the constitution about natural rights wherever the people are mentioned? Natural rights are fairly well defined for US citizens.


Not necessarily. The Constitution does cover these rights, pushed forth by Jefferson who based them on Locke but that was more detailed in the Declaration of Independence rather than in the Constitution.

The Constitution is more in regards to the stipping of power from the States and the creation of a central government more than a focus on natural rights.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
The congress regulates them as they are industries in their own right. But when it comes to free speech through those media, is it regulated? No, it is not, even with implied powers, and constitutionally couldn't be anyway.

That's the point. Non-mentioned sub-categories of media in the first amendment cannot be regulated for the purpose of impairing expression. Non-mentioned sub-categories of arms in the second amendment cannot be regulated for the purpose of impairing of the right to posses them.

Arms covers any personal weapon. By your logic, the congress could deny US citizens the right to posses everything that could be construed as a personal weapon except for oh lets say swords. They would be well within their implied powers to do so?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7
 


The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.


No.. you couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. Congress does not have ANY authority when it comes to guns and gun control. The bill of rights was written by THE STATES to the Federal Government. It is a list of things that the Federal Government is not allowed to do under any circumstances whatsoever, and the 2nd amendment says.... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means that the U.S. Congress can't pass a single law regarding guns. Period. End of story. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of Congress. Those powers are THE ONLY THINGS CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO (and guns aren't in there). That's it. Period. End of story. EVERYTHING ELSE not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 is left to the individual states as per the 10th amendment. It really isn't that hard to understand... the Constitution is written in plain English and in very simple terms.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
The only thing I can say about the gun control laws is that this country was founded by people that didn't want to be told what to do, and now with a base of people raised to believe that is our foundation and what separates us from the rest of the world, we are surprised to see certain individuals lash out at the idea of control. Murder has been illegal since before the written word and it still happens, no two people will respond to a threat of liability the same, I believe rather than force more control on people we need to focus our work and ability to making this a nation of happy personally responsible people. Control wont work it never has, if a group of people has an ingrained belief of their ways no amount of controlling measures will stop the fighting. Just my opinion, I would like to see my money spent on finding a way help people who can find no other way to get what they want than to hurt others. To find out what to do to stop those feelings rather than to spend money taking away only one of their many tools.
edit on 9-4-2013 by RagnarDanniskjold because: correct spelling



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
RagnarDanniskjold,

I agree with you entirely.

The longer I've lived, the more I've found that if you give people responsibility, they tend to step up and become responsible.

I'm reminded of a tragic event in Phoenix a few years back. A child was playing near one of the many aqueducts in the city (many flow between neighborhoods). This kid couldn't swim and as luck would have it, fell in and drowned. Where were the parents? What happened to the parents? They weren't held culpable for what happened and actually tried to sue the city for inadequate signage, placing blame on the city.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7
 


The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.


No.. you couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. Congress does not have ANY authority when it comes to guns and gun control. The bill of rights was written by THE STATES to the Federal Government. It is a list of things that the Federal Government is not allowed to do under any circumstances whatsoever, and the 2nd amendment says.... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means that the U.S. Congress can't pass a single law regarding guns. Period. End of story. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of Congress. Those powers are THE ONLY THINGS CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO (and guns aren't in there). That's it. Period. End of story. EVERYTHING ELSE not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 is left to the individual states as per the 10th amendment. It really isn't that hard to understand... the Constitution is written in plain English and in very simple terms.


Actually you are the one that is incorrect. The second amendment, written by the States as you falsly claim, does not say that people can bear any arms ever invented. It simply states that the people have the right to bear arms. Therefore, as long as the Congress allows arms to be owned, there is no infringement. Blame the States, as you claim, for not being more specific in their language but regardless, nothing is saying that Congress cannot regulate them.

Also, as we've discussed, Congress also has "implied" powers as well as their enumerated powers so their reach extends beyond what is in the Constitution. You learn that in poly sci 100.

As for the States pushing the Bill of Rights, that is false. It was pushed by a certain segement of delegats, led by Jefferson and not by any specific State in itself. Many States did not even want the Bill of Rights for two reasons. The first is that they thought everything was fairly well addressed in the Constitution already and that it was too soon to start changing it and secondly, and more importantly, they felt that if you clearly outlined the rights of the States that only those rights would apply and nothing else.

They knew you couldn't possibly list every right that belonged to a State and by defining what those rights were, a State would forego anything not listed. However, Jefferson had convinced enough delegates to hold up the Constitution so Hamilton was forced to give in to his demands.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Infringement: To Transgress, violate, trespass, encroach, to make obsolete, to exceed the limits of, to violate.

You are suggesting to infringe only means to completely counter, deny, make obsolete. It can also mean to encroach, violate, or transgress. Limiting certain arms verses other is certainly an encroachment, violation, transgression.

I see what you are saying, but the word is most commonly used to refer to a transgression, encroachment, or violation.

If nation 1 infringes on nation 2's territory, nation 2 doesn't cease to be, it has merely been encroached on.
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Hopechest,

I respectfully disagree with you, I truthfully believe that it was left not implying which weapons on purpose so that the Government had no say at all on how someone defended themselves or their homes. After the revolutionary war people most likely had cannons(the tanks of their time) without so much as a peep from the authorities as long as they hurt no one else. That is the point to our freedom as long as we hurt no one else, take nothing from no one else, and accept the responsibility of those freedoms we are free. I do acknowledge the intelligence that went into your replies and interpretation of these articles, you must be a rather intelligent person.

So would you agree with me that as long as whatever I do has no affect on you or anyone else and I will not ask you or anyone else to hold any responsibility for my wants(that it will cost you nothing other than the acknowledgement that we disagree), I should be free to indulge my wants?
edit on 9-4-2013 by RagnarDanniskjold because: clarified statement



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a filibuster is tyranny isn't it ?

blocking a vote is chicken you know what

let them vote

one mans opinion should never take over the legislative process

that's a dictatorship

these pauls are not what they tell you they are



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Galvatron
Infringement: To Transgress, violate, trespass, encroach, to make obsolete, to exceed the limits of, to violate.

You are suggesting to infringe only means to completely counter, deny, make obsolete. It can also mean to encroach, violate, or transgress. Limiting certain arms verses other is certainly an encroachment, violation, transgression.

I see what you are saying, but the word is most commonly used to refer to a transgression, encroachment, or violation.

If nation 1 infringes on nation 2's territory, nation 2 doesn't cease to be, it has merely been encroached on.
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


Lets try another analogy, suppose you are given the right to drive a motor vehicle and the government bans pick-up trucks. Does that infringe on your right to drive a motor vehicle?

I would say no, you can still operate motor vehicles, just now your choices are limited.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7
 


The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.


No.. you couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. Congress does not have ANY authority when it comes to guns and gun control. The bill of rights was written by THE STATES to the Federal Government. It is a list of things that the Federal Government is not allowed to do under any circumstances whatsoever, and the 2nd amendment says.... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means that the U.S. Congress can't pass a single law regarding guns. Period. End of story. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of Congress. Those powers are THE ONLY THINGS CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO (and guns aren't in there). That's it. Period. End of story. EVERYTHING ELSE not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 is left to the individual states as per the 10th amendment. It really isn't that hard to understand... the Constitution is written in plain English and in very simple terms.


Actually you are the one that is incorrect. The second amendment, written by the States as you falsly claim, does not say that people can bear any arms ever invented. It simply states that the people have the right to bear arms. Therefore, as long as the Congress allows arms to be owned, there is no infringement. Blame the States, as you claim, for not being more specific in their language but regardless, nothing is saying that Congress cannot regulate them.

Also, as we've discussed, Congress also has "implied" powers as well as their enumerated powers so their reach extends beyond what is in the Constitution. You learn that in poly sci 100.

As for the States pushing the Bill of Rights, that is false. It was pushed by a certain segement of delegats, led by Jefferson and not by any specific State in itself. Many States did not even want the Bill of Rights for two reasons. The first is that they thought everything was fairly well addressed in the Constitution already and that it was too soon to start changing it and secondly, and more importantly, they felt that if you clearly outlined the rights of the States that only those rights would apply and nothing else.

They knew you couldn't possibly list every right that belonged to a State and by defining what those rights were, a State would forego anything not listed. However, Jefferson had convinced enough delegates to hold up the Constitution so Hamilton was forced to give in to his demands.



I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but Jefferson had nothing to do with what you claim. Jefferson was in Paris at the time of the drafting of the BoRs. And, while he was corresponding with Madison about its importance . . . he was not a determining factor in the document or its inclusion in the Constitution.

Madison drafted the BoRs and if anyone can be said to have spearheaded the support for the document, it is Madison.

Furthermore, Madison drew on the inspiration of the Declaration of Independence to come up with the BoR.

BoR
edit on 4/9/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Hopechest,

Actually I would say yes, that would infringe on my rights. Haha. It seems as though we have fundamentally different outlooks on this and are talking past each other at this point. I really enjoyed the discussion though.

Cheers.
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join