There is a major flaw in free speech vs blasphemy. The punishment power of a religious group is generally limited to its membership. If a member commits blasphemy the religion is free to excomunicate them for the act. The member is free ro speak and the religion is free to respond. What the religion may not do is punish nonmembers in any real legal way for their alleged blasphemy without running afoul of free speech laws.
So religious law does hold a limited level of power over free speech when members of the group commit blasphemy .
But it only applies to members of said group. Admittedly, I may not have chosen the best example here to demonstrate conflicts between the various first amendment rights.
A crazy guy on a soapbox can cause serious harm. If his megaphone is loud enough and his tongue coated in silver he can do a great deal of harm.
That is true, I don't deny that. However, the harm isn't quite as immediate as a crazy guy with a gun. I mean, crazy guys on soapboxes advocating against vaccination, for example, are definitely quite dangerous. However, it takes years of enough people listening to them for it to start actually having any noticeable effect. A crazy guy with a gun, however, can pretty much start causing immediate havoc as soon as he gets the gun.
Let me put it this way; which is a more effective weapon not only today but also at the founding of the USA. The pen or the gun (include inovations for both)?
Let me put it this way; which is a more effective weapon not only today but also at the founding of the USA. The pen or the gun (include inovations for both)?
When used over the course of a short period of time (i.e. minutes to hours): the gun. Over the course of a long period of time (i.e. months to years), the pen, especially since the pen can convince people to use the gun.
One significant difference is that the slower acting nature of the pen as a weapon does give ample time to provide proper defense/countermeasures against its abuse once one witnesses it being used improperly. In the case of anti-vaccine morons, for example, you have plenty of time to offer up counter examples, scientific studies, and so on to blunt and hopefully neutralize the "pen-based" attacks of the anti-vaccine crazies (though, admittedly, some segment of the population will inevitably always side with the crazies -- the idea is to try to get a large enough majority on the side of reason such that the crazies have little to no influence and power). Guns, however, since they are so fast-acting, make it much more difficult to put up a proper defense during the duration of their use to minimize/prevent the associated damage.
I'm a little unclear about the possibilities of a pre-ban market. What I've seen is a requirement for background checks for all transfers, but nothing saying that you can't sell pre-ban firearms and accessories. Did I miss something?
They removed the portion of the old legislation that exempted magazines from before the ban. It goes into effect one year after the date the bill was signed.
Weapons that are now banned are grandfathered in, but can no longer be sold or transferred within the state.
Got a link? I'd like to dig through all the provisions.
A crazy guy with a gun, however, can pretty much start causing immediate havoc as soon as he gets the gun.
Which is why it's imperative that we keep him from getting the gun. the trick is doing so without infringing on the rights of others. Background checks are a reasonable way to do this. The current check system sucks, and I sincerely hope that this whole hullabaloo will end with an improved system.
Taking away a responsible citizens rifles, or making it impossible for to obtain them isn't the ideal solution.
Also the 1st amendment is far more important than the 2nd. If you think otherwise you're fooling yourself.
I think we're allowing pen users to have too much ink at one time. I would prefer if you had to take a break and possibly switch pens every once in a while.
A crazy guy with a gun, however, can pretty much start causing immediate havoc as soon as he gets the gun.
Which is why it's imperative that we keep him from getting the gun. the trick is doing so without infringing on the rights of others. Background checks are a reasonable way to do this. The current check system sucks, and I sincerely hope that this whole hullabaloo will end with an improved system.
Taking away a responsible citizens rifles, or making it impossible for to obtain them isn't the ideal solution.
Exactly. This is how I feel as well.
Also the 1st amendment is far more important than the 2nd. If you think otherwise you're fooling yourself.
Didn't say otherwise. However, if putting reasonable restrictions on the first amendment passes Constitutional muster, especially since it's far more important than the second, why shouldn't putting reasonable restrictions on the second amendment also pass Constitutional muster. Even Antonion Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the current Supreme Court, has stated that procedures to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill or criminally violent pass Constitutional muster so long as they don't put an undue burden on those who can legally acquire guns.
Didn't say otherwise. However, if putting reasonable restrictions on the first amendment passes Constitutional muster, especially since it's far more important than the second, why shouldn't putting reasonable restrictions on the second amendment also pass Constitutional muster. Even Antonion Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the current Supreme Court, has stated that procedures to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill or criminally violent pass Constitutional muster so long as they don't put an undue burden on those who can legally acquire guns.
Yeah. I was agreeing with you. If we can limit free speech then we can sure as shooting limit gun sales. Most reasonable gun advocates agree, the ones who don't are the ones that I worry about.
This whole issue would be a lot more palatable if there weren't so many wakos in the gun rights camp.
Butler: The Swedish system has a measure for that - all healthcare professionals are obligated to report any mental health issue that would prevent you from owning a gun. This record is checked when you get a license, when you get purchase permits, and is (iirc) either tracked for flagged updates, randomly checked, or both.
Sure, it's a passive system, and far from perfect, but it's an interesting example.
A crazy guy with a gun, however, can pretty much start causing immediate havoc as soon as he gets the gun.
Which is why it's imperative that we keep him from getting the gun. the trick is doing so without infringing on the rights of others. Background checks are a reasonable way to do this. The current check system sucks, and I sincerely hope that this whole hullabaloo will end with an improved system.
Taking away a responsible citizens rifles, or making it impossible for to obtain them isn't the ideal solution.
Also the 1st amendment is far more important than the 2nd. If you think otherwise you're fooling yourself.
Background checks have broad support even within the NRA. National Gun Registry? Not likely for that to pass.
If that's the case, then how come the NRA's speaking out against the improved background checks proposed by Obama? I mean, his executive orders basically came down to that and better mental health care.
Now we all know know why despite %20 of the USA's population owning firearms the NRA cant even manage to get 3% of said population to join.
The NRA is more a shill for the gun industry than gun owners as a whole.
Background checks have broad support even within the NRA. National Gun Registry? Not likely for that to pass.
But a national gun registry stands as the best way to curb actual gun violence. Assault weapons, while the weapon of choice for mass murders, are not actually that commonly used for crimes. Handguns are the weapon of choice for the average perpetrator of the 10,000+ gun related deaths per year. And those guns get there mostly through "gun show" private sale loop hole in background checks. If we tracked guns and held people accountable for firearms trafficking when they sold guns to a convicted felon we'd probably have much lower rate of gun crime in this country.
Illinois legalized CCW, but Chicago banned the sale and transport of handguns within the city limits using weapons trafficking statutes. So, it's de facto illegal to possess a handgun in Chicago.
Now, white male privilege being what it is in the Lonesome Corrupt Midwest, I can probably just wear a suit jacket over my shoulder holster and be totally ignored. That said, CPD has a history of making examples, so I think I'm just going to stick with a decoy wallet and my fists.
That was never my plan! I just wanted to be able to carry. Also, I know that even if you're carrying while being mugged, it's better to just give up your shit and not risk death.
The problem with concealed carry is it's only useful in a situation where someone intends to do you grave harm only for the purpose of harming you. That sort of thing happening is like getting struck by lightening, and I don't walk around wearing a lightening rod "just in case." Also guns are banned so many places that it's kinda a hassle.
So why ban "assault" weapons when real problem is handguns?
Cause they look scary, duh! >_>
Assault weapons are dangerous, there was a guy recently who unloaded on a cop with one (crazy 'the goberment is trying to take my guns' type). Thankfully the cop took cover and wasn't injured. The problem is that they're really just a semi-automatic rifle with a short-ish barrel and easy to reload with fresh mags. For example, my Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle was not an assault rifle by the rules of the assault rifle ban. But pop a 30 round magazine in it and it's just as deadly as the AR-15s that have been used in the recent rash of mass shootings. Even with a 10 round magazine limit it's a devastating weapon when the people you're using it against only have fists and the occasional chair.
So why ban "assault" weapons when real problem is handguns?
There have been a couple different cases that ruled that outright banning handguns would be unconstitutional.
So why ban "assault" weapons when real problem is handguns?
Cause they look scary, duh! >_>
Assault weapons are dangerous, there was a guy recently who unloaded on a cop with one (crazy 'the goberment is trying to take my guns' type). Thankfully the cop took cover and wasn't injured. The problem is that they're really just a semi-automatic rifle with a short-ish barrel and easy to reload with fresh mags. For example, my Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle was not an assault rifle by the rules of the assault rifle ban. But pop a 30 round magazine in it and it's just as deadly as the AR-15s that have been used in the recent rash of mass shootings. Even with a 10 round magazine limit it's a devastating weapon when the people you're using it against only have fists and the occasional chair.
True, but really any person with guns against a bunch of people without them is probably going to wreak havoc. Hell, give a guy a bolt action and a quick wrist and he can come pretty close.
Allow me to point out for a moment that it's stupid easy to get a pump-action shotgun in the UK (or at least a sawed-off double-barrel), and pump-action shotguns are infinitely more psychologically terrifying to me than a Glock.
So why ban "assault" weapons when real problem is handguns?
Cause they look scary, duh! >_>
Assault weapons are dangerous, there was a guy recently who unloaded on a cop with one (crazy 'the goberment is trying to take my guns' type). Thankfully the cop took cover and wasn't injured. The problem is that they're really just a semi-automatic rifle with a short-ish barrel and easy to reload with fresh mags. For example, my Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle was not an assault rifle by the rules of the assault rifle ban. But pop a 30 round magazine in it and it's just as deadly as the AR-15s that have been used in the recent rash of mass shootings. Even with a 10 round magazine limit it's a devastating weapon when the people you're using it against only have fists and the occasional chair.
True, but really any person with guns against a bunch of people without them is probably going to wreak havoc. Hell, give a guy a bolt action and a quick wrist and he can come pretty close.
The difference being that few bolt guns have magazines over 5 rounds. You're right of course, but semi-auto makes it much easier.
And yes, a pump shotgun is dangerous too, but your rampage really slows once you've exhausted the internal magazine.
Allow me to point out for a moment that it's stupid easy to get a pump-action shotgun in the UK (or at least a sawed-off double-barrel), and pump-action shotguns are infinitely more psychologically terrifying to me than a Glock.
No no its not. The laws around owning guns is completely different and the pump action can only hold 3 rounds by law any more and that it illegal. Also sawn-offs are illegal to the point where you are fucked, our gun laws a really pretty strict.
Comments
One significant difference is that the slower acting nature of the pen as a weapon does give ample time to provide proper defense/countermeasures against its abuse once one witnesses it being used improperly. In the case of anti-vaccine morons, for example, you have plenty of time to offer up counter examples, scientific studies, and so on to blunt and hopefully neutralize the "pen-based" attacks of the anti-vaccine crazies (though, admittedly, some segment of the population will inevitably always side with the crazies -- the idea is to try to get a large enough majority on the side of reason such that the crazies have little to no influence and power). Guns, however, since they are so fast-acting, make it much more difficult to put up a proper defense during the duration of their use to minimize/prevent the associated damage.
Taking away a responsible citizens rifles, or making it impossible for to obtain them isn't the ideal solution.
Also the 1st amendment is far more important than the 2nd. If you think otherwise you're fooling yourself.
For Whaleshark: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2230-2013
This whole issue would be a lot more palatable if there weren't so many wakos in the gun rights camp.
Sure, it's a passive system, and far from perfect, but it's an interesting example.
Edit: @ churba: Part of the NYS legislation is to create a new database to function pretty much just like the one you described. I am %100 for it.
Now, white male privilege being what it is in the Lonesome Corrupt Midwest, I can probably just wear a suit jacket over my shoulder holster and be totally ignored. That said, CPD has a history of making examples, so I think I'm just going to stick with a decoy wallet and my fists.
Assault weapons are dangerous, there was a guy recently who unloaded on a cop with one (crazy 'the goberment is trying to take my guns' type). Thankfully the cop took cover and wasn't injured. The problem is that they're really just a semi-automatic rifle with a short-ish barrel and easy to reload with fresh mags. For example, my Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle was not an assault rifle by the rules of the assault rifle ban. But pop a 30 round magazine in it and it's just as deadly as the AR-15s that have been used in the recent rash of mass shootings. Even with a 10 round magazine limit it's a devastating weapon when the people you're using it against only have fists and the occasional chair.
And yes, a pump shotgun is dangerous too, but your rampage really slows once you've exhausted the internal magazine.