I keep hearing this, usually from the mouths of those who are REALLY scared about what the SCOTUS is about to say.

They point to the 1st, and say it isn't without restrictions, and cite shouting fire in a crowded theater. They then use this logic to say that similarly, reasonable restrictions can be placed on gun ownership (felons, nut cases, assault rifles, high capacity "clips", things that go bang, etc).

However, what they fail to mention is that there are (to my knowledge) no restrictions on the RIGHT to free speech, but there are some limits on responsibility in using it.

I can say whatever I like - saying the wrong things at the wrong time may get me into trouble.

I know of no laws which prevent felons from owning printing presses (even those who were guilty of printing their own money). No laws requiring people to wear gags in certain locations (church, government buildings etc.).

A similar view of the 2nd seems eminently reasonable to me - own what you want, but use it inappropriately and you will get into trouble.

There can be NO restrictions on RIGHTS, but there can be consequences for inapropriate use of those rights.

Discuss.

Restrictions exist not on the right itself, but use of that right.

Regarding the 1st, you can say 'FIRE!', but you can't yell it in a crowded theater, because it could cause injury to others.

As for the 2nd, restricting particular arms is NOT allowable... but restricting how they are used (i.e., you can HAVE a machinegun, but you can't kill people or damage other's property) is reasonable.  

People have the concept of 'reasonable restrictions' screwed up.  

Quoted: Restrictions exist not on the right itself, but use of that right. Regarding the 1st, you can say 'FIRE!', but you can't yell it in a crowded theater, because it could cause injury to others. As for the 2nd, restricting particular arms is NOT allowable... but restricting how they are used (i.e., you can HAVE a machinegun, but you can't kill people or damage other's property) is reasonable.   People have the concept of 'reasonable restrictions' screwed up.

The only restrictions on any rights are all property rights.  That is to say, if I yell fire in a theatre, I am infringing on the contract between the theatre owner and their patrons, and violating their property rights.  If someone owns a home, and does not want guns there, I am infringing on their property rights by bringing one there.  There are NO restrictions that are not bona-fide violations on property rights.  This is true for all rights.

I always point out that that's true, just like I can't go into a bank waving a gun around.  The example of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is specifically addressing a reckless "behavior" in exercising your rights.  Not what you exercise them with.  

We already have laws on the books that address this limitation on our 2nd amendment rights, such as "brandishing a firearm", "reckless endangerment", "discharging a firearm within city limits", and not to mention "assault" in its myriad forms.  


But they don't get it because they're fucking idiots.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.


Consider FL:

1. Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device 2. Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged 3. Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed 4. Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon 5. Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed

Punish the crime not the object.  The only "inconsistency" with this thread being item #4

Sounds interesting.. sounds right..

Regardless of how right, how correct and how constitutional our cause is.. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will vote against us..

She's an anti-conservative politician in SCOTUS robes..

As for the other justices.. I believe that they will all agree on the right but will be divided on "Restrictions"..

Quoted: Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Consider FL: 1. Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device 2. Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged 3. Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed 4. Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon 5. Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed Punish the crime not the object.  The only "inconsistency" with this thread being item #4

I would argue that #4 is inconsistent. You might want to increase the penalties for someone who has already shown themselves irresponsible, or you may want to limit the right for specific individuals, for specific reasons - but not a whole class arbitrarily.

Felons are US citizens, the bill of rights pertains to all citizens.
Now you can argue that certain felonies carry a penalty of loss of citizenship (temporary or otherwise).

Quoted: Quoted: Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Consider FL: 1. Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender possesses a firearm or destructive device 2. Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged 3. Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed 4. Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon 5. Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed Punish the crime not the object.  The only "inconsistency" with this thread being item #4 I would argue that #4 is inconsistent. You might want to increase the penalties for someone who has already shown themselves irresponsible, or you may want to limit the right for specific individuals, for specific reasons - but not a whole class arbitrarily. Felons are US citizens, the bill of rights pertains to all citizens. Now you can argue that certain felonies carry a penalty of loss of citizenship (temporary or otherwise).

So you agree or disagree with me?  You even used the same word

Quoted: People have the concept of 'reasonable restrictions' screwed up.

People have the concept of 'well regulated' totally screwed up.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


How much clearer does it need to be?

It is true.

The question is what is "reasonable."

If you take the position that "shall not be infringed" is 100% meaning no laws of any kind on the subject, then how do you justify that "congress shall make no law" in the first amendment, yet there are laws restricting that freedom?  You'd be hypocritical to support one interpretation for one amendment and a different for another.

Yes there can be reasonable restrictions.  The NFA on it's face is reasonable.  The implementation is not - long waiting, paper work, CLEO approval etc.  A simple sales tax on NFA items at point of sale would be perfectly legal.

Quoted: It is true. The question is what is "reasonable." If you take the position that "shall not be infringed" is 100% meaning no laws of any kind on the subject, then how do you justify that "congress shall make no law" in the first amendment, yet there are laws restricting that freedom?  You'd be hypocritical to support one interpretation for one amendment and a different for another. Yes there can be reasonable restrictions.  The NFA on it's face is reasonable.  The implementation is not - long waiting, paper work, CLEO approval etc.  A simple sales tax on NFA items at point of sale would be perfectly legal.

There is a difference between a piece of metal and going into a store and shooting up a place. One does not have to do with the other.

The first is akin to the NFA...the NFA is totally against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. It's IS an infringement. A sales tax is not an infringement as long is it's not so high it prohibits ownership.

The second point I'm making is an action. Assault is an action and yes, you can make a law against that.