USA Today Op Ed -"An unambiguous right"

[Liberty1]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/opposing-view-3.html#more

Opposing view: An unambiguous right
2nd Amendment bars regulation of people’s ability to bear arms.
By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson

Compelled to take up arms to regain their liberties as Englishmen, America's Founders knew that even the constitutional republic they had established could threaten the freedoms for which they had fought. In the First Amendment, they established a first line of defense — the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

Knowing that words and parchment barriers alone would prove inadequate to restrain those elected as servants from becoming tyrants, they added the Second Amendment to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — not to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of "a free State."

Their foremost concern was the precipitating events of the American Revolution, wherein British troops in Massachusetts and Virginia seized American muskets, cannon and powder — actions the Declaration of Independence calls "a design to reduce (the colonists) under absolute Despotism."

Entrusting the nation's sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government's military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed.

Thus, the amendment's "well regulated Militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment's "keep and bear Arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (applying a 2007 court of appeals' test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).

No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.

Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson are attorneys for Gun Owners of America, which filed a brief in the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court heard Tuesday.

[tazmanian devil dog]

Right on the freakin' money. Great article.

[Bizcuits]

Preaching to the choir

[CCWFacts]

No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.

Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson are attorneys for Gun Owners of America, which filed a brief in the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court heard Tuesday.

This type of article does us a lot of harm. No surprise that it's from Gun Owners of America, an organization I will never support again (I did once, long time ago).

All of our rights are subject to regulation. Should the 2A somehow be above the others? There's nothing in the BoR to indicate the 2A is less than the 1A or the others, but nothing to indicate it's above it. If a right that can be regulated is no right, are they saying that the 1A is meaningless and gives us no rights, just because we have laws against slander, incitement, copyright infringement, and regulations on advertising claims?

The only question is, what's the standard of review? All the others are held to "strict scrutiny", meaning, there better be a very compelling reason, and the regulation must be the minimal regulation that could achieve that compelling needing, and the government has to prove it.

Arguing that the 2A is beyond all regulation means arguing that felons and the mentally incompetent should be able to buy guns without restriction. That's absurd and embarrassing.

[GuyW]

....All of our rights are subject to regulation.

....are they saying that the 1A is meaningless and gives us no rights, just because we have laws against slander, incitement, copyright infringement, and regulations on advertising claims?

The only question is....

Arguing that the 2A is beyond all regulation....absurd and embarrassing.

No - what's absurb and embarrassing is purportedly pro-rights people spewing foggy thinking that undermines rights.

You have absolute free speech rights, and AFTER THE FACT, you can be sued for slander, copyright infringement, false advertising, and be charged with incitement.

A FAIR comparison would be, you have an absolute right to bear arms, but AFTER THE FACT you can be charged with murder, robbery, etc.

The anti-rights people want prior restraint on exercising your PRIVILEGES.

The Founding Fathers meant it when they wrote, "...shall not be infringed...", but people not worthy to carry their chamber pot think they're smarter...

[bulgron]

No - what's absurb and embarrassing is purportedly pro-rights people spewing foggy thinking that undermines rights.


This is unnecessarily harsh. CCWFacts is just trying to point out that the 2A should be held to the same standard of judicial review as is the entire rest of the bill of rights. No more, no less.

In any society, the rights an individual might hold in a complete absence of civilization must be balanced against society's need to protect itself. We don't want society's need for self-protection to overshadow and enslave the individual. But then again, complete anarchy in which the individual's rights are held above all other concerns also does very few people any good.

Therefore, some kind of balance must be struck. Some societies err on the side of protecting the state on the theory (I suppose) that by protecting the state the people can better arrive at some sort of condition of happiness. But in this country we recognize the danger in that approach, so instead we try to err on the side of protecting the individual's liberties. Still, the state must receive some protection in the deal or the state will not last for very long at all.

To allow the state some latitude in protecting itself, we invented the concept of "strict scrutiny." It just means that an individual's right can be abridged only under the most compelling circumstances. Happily, as it turns out, it is rare for the state to find a reason to infringe on a right held to this standard of scrutiny.

But on some rare occasions, the state's interests DO overrule the individual's rights. This is just the price we pay for living within the protection of a civilization. Some may not like it, but few would chose the alternative approach -- complete anarchy in which only the very strong can guarantee their own uninhibited and unfettered rights.

So at the end of the day the state will exercise some sort of control over our Second Amendment rights, just as they do over all our other rights. In a perfect situation, we would get the sort of carry and ownership laws that they have in Alaska and Vermont. But we don't live in Alaska or Vermont, instead we live in a place where our Second Amendment rights were frittered away by our forefathers for reasons that I don't pretend to understand. It took 70 years to get here. Considering that, if California has to put up with a permit system for some amount of time before we can move to the happier example set by Alaska and Vermont, then so be it. We aren't going to convince our fellow citizens to throw open the gates and let anyone carry anywhere, and own whatever they want, without government oversight overnight.

Sometimes you have to bring the horse to the open barn door and let him sniff the fresh air before you can convince him to step outside. That's not just reality, that's politics.

[CCWFacts]

Thank you Bulgron.

You have absolute free speech rights, and AFTER THE FACT, you can be sued for slander, copyright infringement, false advertising, and be charged with incitement.

The anti-rights people want prior restraint on exercising your PRIVILEGES.

There are prior restraints on speech. It's illegal to shout "fire" in a theater, and there's a prior restraint against it. It's illegal to even own printing plates that could print currency. It's illegal to have unauthorized possession of classified information (ie, take a document home with you from your job at the DoD). There's prior restraint against disclosing classified information or trade secrets. It's illegal to make available for free copyrighted material without authorization; that's a restraint that's prior to anyone actually copying it. And all these things are covered under criminal law, not just civil.

If there is a mistake in speech (someone violates copyright for example) that could usually be remedied with financial remedies. A mistake in use of a firearm normally has no remedy, so even under strict scrutiny, it's clearly easier to justify firearms regulations than speech regulations. You can fix most speech harms after the fact; firearms harms cannot be fixed.

There are three standards of judicial review of laws with respect to rights: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. There's no fourth option of "beyond all regulation".

Call me a sell-out or whatever you want, but Gura and the NRA all take the same position as me on this. Saying that the right to bear arms is somehow the only right in the BoR that's beyond all government regulation is nuts, in my opinion, and it's what the Brady Campaign is saying about us, and it only harms our cause. The question is not, "can we regulate it", but, "what is the correct judicial standard". "No guns for felons" is an obvious regulation that the NRA and Gura and almost everyone else agrees with. That stands up to strict scrutiny. That's a regulation.

The NRA should state loud and clear that all rights, including the 1A, 2A, 4A, etc, are all subject to regulation, and we all support common-sense restrictions, and the only question is, what's the correct judicial test for common sense.

It's funny, the Brady Campaign has backed away from defending the 100% ban on functional firearms in DC. It's hard to claim that's consistent with any common sense.

The Brady Campaign and NRA both believe in common-sense regulation of firearms. The only disagreement is what does common sense mean, ie, what's the standard of review. The Brady Campaign would go with rational basis, which allows the government to do whatever it wants. The NRA (and I) would go with strict scrutiny, meaning there must be a good reason, the regulation must the the narrowest way to achieve that goal, and the government must prove it.

I want to be able to buy a machine gun, but I don't want felons to be able to buy guns from their local FFL.

Read the Wiki article on strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny). It says:

Strict scrutiny is the penultimate standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law (the most exacting standard, "super strict scrutiny," is used to review prior restraints

So, the 1A is subject to prior restraints which stand up to "super" strict scrutiny. The 2A should be judged exactly the same way, although "super" is obviously a lower bar when dealing with firearms (where harm cannot be remedied) than when dealing with speech (where harm usually can be remedied).

[mymonkeyman]

You have absolute free speech rights, and AFTER THE FACT, you can be sued for slander, copyright infringement, false advertising, and be charged with incitement.


Firstly I don't think a right that is subject to subsequent criminal and civil liability is "absolute." Secondly there are a whole host of ways that governments, consistent with court interpretations of the 1st amendment, exercise prior restraint. One way is reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that requiring permitting, etc. You can also get injunctions (a classic form of prior restraint) in most states against a wide variety of speech-activities that fall into those categories of defamation, copyright infringement, trade secret violations, fraud and fraud like claims, etc. Anyone who has taken 1st amendment law realizes almost every 1st amendment case comes down to a balancing test, a test highly incompatible with an "absolute" right.

That being said, I liked Roberts' suggestion in the oral arguments not to apply any of the traditional constitutional tests like "strict scrutiny" "intermediate scrutiny" or "rational basis" to the 2nd amendment but create a sui generis test that actually reflects the nature of the right. This likely means no balancing tests, which is a good thing.

Also I liked the article. I agree that simply having a "reasonableness" test is crap because you don't want some anti-gun judge deciding what is reasonable or necessary about guns. Just because it works for the 1st amendment won't make it work for the 2nd amendment when you have so many judges in the judiciary that are anti-2nd amendment. You want a test that is hard to cheat (i.e. has bright lines) and requires them to look to verifiable facts rather than make a policy choice (which what much of 1st amendment law has become). 1st amendment law with all its balancing and reasonable tests only works because most judges are pro-1st amendment. The 2nd amendment isn't so lucky. The best part is SCOTUS has the chance to do that now. There is essentially no caselaw, so they can create a good test from the beginning, as opposed to the 1st amendment which Roberts correctly characterized as essentially picking up crap along the way.

[CCWFacts]

Hey that's a good idea! I want a test that says "you can own machine guns and CCW must be shall issue".

[GuyW]

There are prior restraints on speech. It's illegal to shout "fire" in a theater, and there's a prior restraint against it.

That's not "prior restraint".

"Prior restraint is a legal term referring to a government's actions that prevent materials from being published. Censorship that requires a person to seek governmental permission in the form of a license or imprimatur before publishing anything constitutes prior restraint every time permission is denied. More recently, prior restraint has often taken the form of an injunction or other governmental order prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject. Sometimes, the government becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it. In other cases, the government attempts to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are also usually considered to be cases of prior restraint, because future publications are stopped before they start."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

William Blackstone's Commentaries:

”The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an [283 U.S. 697, 714] undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity." (4 Bl. Com. 151, 152.)

So, if there are prior restraints on speech, it's contrary to the common law and the Founder's intentions when they wrote the 1st Amendment (ie, unConstitutional).

Now, the government can't stop anyone from shouting fire without cutting their vocal cords (or something, which would be prior restraint). It can only punish after the fact, if it in fact is illegal.


There are prior restraints on speech.... It's illegal to even own printing plates that could print currency....


A. Printing money isn't speech.

B. Assuming that possession of printing plates is illegal, it's punished AFTER THE FACT, NOT PREVENTED BEFORE.
(It's illegal because the government can't have just anyone cutting into its rackets...)


There are prior restraints on speech....It's illegal to have unauthorized possession of classified information (ie, take a document home with you from your job at the DoD)....


A. Stealing documents isn't speech.

B. It's punished AFTER THE FACT, NOT PREVENTED BEFORE.


....There's prior restraint against disclosing classified information or trade secrets. It's illegal to make available for free copyrighted material without authorization; that's a restraint that's prior to anyone actually copying it.


A. Stealing someone else's work or speech isn't speech.

B. It's punished AFTER THE FACT, not prevented before...



...I want to be able to buy a machine gun, but I don't want felons to be able to buy guns from their local FFL.


Duh. Felons gave up or were stripped of their civil and Constitutional Rights upon conviction!

Therefore, preventing felons from having guns is NOT regulating the 2nd Amendment....so for citizens, the RKBA "shall not be infringed".


So, the 1A is subject to prior restraints which stand up to "super" strict scrutiny.....


See above regarding falacious concept of "prior restraint".

Prior restraint on speech is unConstitutional and unAmerican.

Strict scrutiny is a red herring concept to mislead the feeble-minded. Strengthen your mind.


...prior restraints....The 2A should be judged exactly the same way, although "super" is obviously a lower bar when dealing with firearms (where harm cannot be remedied) than when dealing with speech (where harm can...


You sound like the gun-grabbers now:

"Guns are so dangerous, crime so rampant, and gun injuries so grevious and non-remediable, that we need all sorts of gun laws to remove as many (or all) from private hands as possible"

[GuyW]

Firstly I don't think a right that is subject to subsequent criminal and civil liability is "absolute."

A right, correctly used, is absolute.

Abusing a claimed right means one has gone outside the parameters of the right, and therefore there is no right.

....Secondly there are a whole host of ways that governments, consistent with court interpretations of the 1st amendment, exercise prior restraint.

Gee, American courts that make unConstitutional interpretations and limitations - who'd a thunk it?

Oh, yeah - before you tell me that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is:

"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
-Thomas Jefferson-

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-Thomas Jefferson- letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

[GuyW]

....That being said, I liked Roberts' suggestion in the oral arguments not to apply any of the traditional constitutional tests like "strict scrutiny" "intermediate scrutiny" or "rational basis" to the 2nd amendment but create a sui generis test that actually reflects the nature of the right. This likely means no balancing tests, which is a good thing.

Also I liked the article. I agree that simply having a "reasonableness" test is crap because you don't want some anti-gun judge deciding what is reasonable or necessary about guns. Just because it works for the 1st amendment won't make it work for the 2nd amendment when you have so many judges in the judiciary that are anti-2nd amendment. You want a test that is hard to cheat (i.e. has bright lines) and requires them to look to verifiable facts rather than make a policy choice (which what much of 1st amendment law has become). 1st amendment law with all its balancing and reasonable tests only works because most judges are pro-1st amendment. The 2nd amendment isn't so lucky. The best part is SCOTUS has the chance to do that now. There is essentially no caselaw, so they can create a good test from the beginning, as opposed to the 1st amendment which Roberts correctly characterized as essentially picking up crap along the way.

This part of your post is great! Thanx for the thought-provoking information...

[mymonkeyman]

A right, correctly used, is absolute.

Abusing a claimed right means one has gone outside the parameters of the right, and therefore there is no right.



Gee, American courts that make unConstitutional interpretations and limitations - who'd a thunk it?

Oh, yeah - before you tell me that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is:

"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal."
-Thomas Jefferson-

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-Thomas Jefferson- letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Well there are 3 branches of government. When a bill is passed, the legislature and executive get together to pass it (with rare exception of a veto override), and it is an implicit statement that the law is constitutional. If that bill restricts the freedom of speech, only the courts are left to say whether or not it does so constitutionally. Now yes, you can say Joe on the street can say what is constitutional or not too, but I doubt even Jefferson would agree that the constitutionality of the law is determined by Joe on the street, because Tom, Dick, and Harry could all have disagreeing constitutional interpretations.

I think the key to understand is that when the American courts decided that there was no such thing as an absolute or unconditional 1st amendment right, they were faithfully following the precedent of the English conception of the analogous rights to freedom of speech, assembly, etc. Now you may disagree and say that the 1st amendment was supposed to be a radical break from the English conception, and you have Hugo "No law means no law" Black on your side. However, I don't think that interpretation jives with the context of the bill of rights, which was a document that the Federalists thought unnecessary but was used to assuage the anti-Federalists' concerns that the new Federal Constitution was going to allow the new Federal government to infringe the traditional rights of English common law.

[GuyW]

...I think the key to understand is that when the American courts decided that there was no such thing as an absolute or unconditional 1st amendment right, they were faithfully following the precedent of the English conception of the analogous rights to freedom of speech...

Did you read my Blackstone quote up above? It is 180 degrees from your assertion.

Yeah, to pass the Bar you need to regurgitate the pre-programmed material....so carry on.

Just be cognizant that many of the Founding Fathers would have *hanged* many Supreme Court Justices as traitors to the Constitution...

[zeleny]

Just be cognizant that many of the Founding Fathers would have hung many Supreme Court Justices as traitors to the Constitution...As long as you are channeling our national paternity, make it "would have hanged". The rule of thumb is that pictures are hung, whereas people are hanged, except for cases of their endowment with hanging additions or appendages.

[GuyW]

As long as you are channeling our national paternity....

No channeling necessary - they left us their thoughts...

[hoffmang]

Guy,

You've made it clear - you're an absolutist. Congratulations on your extremely minority view. I'm happy that you have never had any reason to challenge your absolute views.

Here's your problem - a super majority of everyone else - even people close to your position - don't agree with you in society. Sucks, but its the truth.

I'll give you a hint. If you'd like to pull people's opinions closer to yours you would take the facts above into consideration. If you'd like to hear yourself talk and have people who'd otherwise agree with large pieces of what you believe tune out - you're doing an excellent job of that.

-Gene

[zeleny]

No channeling necessary - they left us their thoughts...Not so. The Founding Fathers left us their words and a record of their deeds. Imputing their thoughts is your doing.

[CCWFacts]

Re: copyright:

Stealing someone else's work or speech isn't speech.

Copyright violation isn't stealing. Crim. copyright violation is a crime under Federal copyright statutes which have nothing to do with theft or stealing. I don't believe that Federal criminal law even has statutes against simple stealing (except maybe of federal property or something).

Felons gave up or were stripped of their civil and Constitutional Rights upon conviction!
Therefore, preventing felons from having guns is NOT regulating the 2nd Amendment....so for citizens, the RKBA "shall not be infringed".


Whatever, it's a prior restraint and a regulation, which you are supporting. And by the way, gun rights don't come with citizenship. Non-citizens (resident aliens) have all the same gun rights that citizens have. So your "beyond all regulation" still includes some regulations that you support (no guns for felons). You're just rephrasing it from "regulation" to "losing gun rights".

You sound like the gun-grabbers now:

"Guns are so dangerous, crime so rampant, and gun injuries so grevious and non-remediable, that we need all sorts of gun laws to remove as many (or all) from private hands as possible"

Anyone can see that the harm that can come from a gun is quite different from the harm that can come from a printing press. If someone prints defamation, the offender can pay money and print an apology and the person who was defamed will be remedied by that. For a person who has been shot, they might get a monetary award (although most violent criminals are paupers so really there's no money) there is no remedy.

[yellowfin]

Guy,

You've made it clear - you're an absolutist. Congratulations on your extremely minority view. I'm happy that you have never had any reason to challenge your absolute views.

Here's your problem - a super majority of everyone else - even people close to your position - don't agree with you in society. Sucks, but its the truth.

I'll give you a hint. If you'd like to pull people's opinions closer to yours you would take the facts above into consideration. If you'd like to hear yourself talk and have people who'd otherwise agree with large pieces of what you believe tune out - you're doing an excellent job of that.

-Gene Diluting one's stances is what has gotten us in this horrid mess we have now in the first place. I too am an absolutist, and people sure as heck don't move away from my position. They usually move towards it instead.

[KenpoProfessor]

Diluting one's stances is what has gotten us in this horrid mess we have now in the first place. I too am an absolutist, and people sure as heck don't move away from my position. They usually move towards it instead.

I agree, and people wonder why we have the 86 FOPA that took away that right to own a new select fire, because it got bargained away, like many other rights, especially in CA.

And JFTR, I'm not a complete absolutist, I don't want crazies having guns. I would like to to see state or federally sponsored gun safety courses for those that choose to own firearms as well. A militia falls under the auspices of the State, they should 1)issue the weapons 2) provide a tax break for the private purchase 3) provide training at State costs or reimbursement vouchers.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[bwiese]

I agree, and people wonder why we have the 86 FOPA that took away that right to own a new select fire, because it got bargained away, like many other rights, especially in CA.

Please stop this urban legend.

Please point us to where it was bargained away - instead of being a last-minute tagged-on addition to McClure-Volkmer FOPA right before vote.

[aileron]

A militia falls under the auspices of the State, they should 1)issue the weapons 2) provide a tax break for the private purchase 3) provide training at State costs or reimbursement vouchers.


The whole point of keep and bear is to protect the militia from decay by states and feds ignoring/neglecting them, which is what happened. You don't want states in charge of supplying arms to the militia. Our founders were pretty smart about all this, and from experience no less.

There is a reason why you supply your own. How can they disarm the militia through neglect when they don't arm them?

Not infringe also makes sure they cannot disarm the militia made up of the whole body of the people. This whole thing was well thought out. Its just being perverted to try and remove its teeth. They knew that governments did it through indirect means. Like hunting laws in England. Which we are experiencing today, through all manner of attempts, micro stamping, bullet licensing, lead bans, etc.

The 2nd supports not just your ability to arm yourself for self defense, hunting, practice, but your ability to form up as a militia regardless of whether the government is actively supporting it or not. The founders knew governments could disarm the militia through neglect as well.

Smart folks if you ask me.

[KenpoProfessor]

Please stop this urban legend.

Please point us to where it was bargained away - instead of being a last-minute tagged-on addition to McClure-Volkmer FOPA right before vote.


Reagan didn't have to sign the bill, it's really that simple. He could've vetoed it and sent it back to get rid of the amendment. That didn't happen, and I was trying to find an article about Reagan discussing this with the NRA at the time. They (NRA) thought they could get it stricken in the courts before it took effect.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[hoffmang]

Diluting one's stances is what has gotten us in this horrid mess we have now in the first place. I too am an absolutist, and people sure as heck don't move away from my position. They usually move towards it instead.

Go tell your boss that your going to open carry at work since its your right. I mean, that's the absolutist position? Why listen to him?

-Gene

[aplinker]

Go tell your boss that your going to open carry at work since its your right. I mean, that's the absolutist position? Why listen to him?

-Gene

Are you suggesting there's a yellow streak on yellowfin? :D

[zeleny]

Anyone can see that the harm that can come from a gun is quite different from the harm that can come from a printing press. If someone prints defamation, the offender can pay money and print an apology and the person who was defamed will be remedied by that. For a person who has been shot, they might get a monetary award (although most violent criminals are paupers so really there's no money) there is no remedy.There is no remedy after the fact for disclosure of state secrets.

[GuyW]

Go tell your boss that your going to open carry at work since its your right. I mean, that's the absolutist position? Why listen to him?
-Gene

Go tell your boss that your going to register Communist since its your right, and wear Communist party buttons etc. Why listen to him?

[GuyW]

You've made it clear - you're an absolutist. Congratulations on your extremely minority view.


Wow! you made me see the light with the force of your argument - now I won't form any opinions until I can follow a crowd, preferably the one you're in....

I'm happy that you have never had any reason to challenge your absolute views.


WTF do you knw about me "never having to challenge" my views??

I revisit my views regularly, thank you. Some are even under revision...probably won't meet your approval tho

As for my purported "absolutist" views, I believe you didn't follow my line of thought. Dunno if that's my failure or yours....

[KenpoProfessor]

Re: copyright:



Copyright violation isn't stealing. Crim. copyright violation is a crime under Federal copyright statutes which have nothing to do with theft or stealing. I don't believe that Federal criminal law even has statutes against simple stealing (except maybe of federal property or something).



Whatever, it's a prior restraint and a regulation, which you are supporting. And by the way, gun rights don't come with citizenship. Non-citizens (resident aliens) have all the same gun rights that citizens have. So your "beyond all regulation" still includes some regulations that you support (no guns for felons). You're just rephrasing it from "regulation" to "losing gun rights".



Anyone can see that the harm that can come from a gun is quite different from the harm that can come from a printing press. If someone prints defamation, the offender can pay money and print an apology and the person who was defamed will be remedied by that. For a person who has been shot, they might get a monetary award (although most violent criminals are paupers so really there's no money) there is no remedy.

So, let's say you and your wife run a daycare center, then I get all pissed at you and accuse you of molesting children? The media gets involved and it's all over the news and no one is using your business. Hmm???

The only difference between the wound of a bullet and the use of the pen is the amount of time it takes to effect.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[hoffmang]

1. I find it amusing that I get called a communist a lot. Must have to do with not being a partisan Republican as I dislike both parties pretty equally.

I follow your logic just fine - it however happens to be broken. There are many exceptions to fundamental rights but they are so obviously exceptions that we don't think of them as such.

Do you think someone who disagrees with you will take your arguments more or less seriously the less professional you are about them?

-Gene

[CCWFacts]

Go tell your boss that your going to register Communist since its your right, and wear Communist party buttons etc. Why listen to him?

This is too easy...

Go tell the ATF (or some web forum or whatever) that you have exercised your right to own militia weapons, and have therefore converted an AR-15 into an M4 configuration, with the "fun" parts. Why listen to them?

We all adapt to reality in some way. What we should do is push as hard as we can to get the most freedom, while understanding that there are no absolute victories in politics, and also understanding that we need to be persuasive and effective and smart about our strategy.

[bulgron]

We all adapt to reality in some way. What we should do is push as hard as we can to get the most freedom, while understanding that there are no absolute victories in politics, and also understanding that we need to be persuasive and effective and smart about our strategy.

Well there you go being all common sensical and all. Can't have that .... :rolleyes: