2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on May 27, 2025, 08:24:43 PM
-
https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/tantalus-shooting-new-details-released-as-suspect-faces-charges/article_92603fb9-1cfb-40ab-9eda-ad8aa1f63e67.html
She explained that Garside drove her to an unknown cemetery, where they smoked methamphetamine. The woman claimed that Garside gave her some money and that she gave it back to him. She then drove the car and they went up to the Tantalus Drive, the hills.
The woman then stopped the car at some point along Tantalus Drive when Garside wanted her to go to a different place but she refused. Then, Garside allegedly shot her in close range which made her lose her hearing for a moment. Afterwards she opened the car door and ran to hide in some bushes until he left the area.
Shooter and victim smoked meth before he shot her after she refused sex. He's also a felon, so how did he get a gun? :grrr: ???
-
https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/tantalus-shooting-new-details-released-as-suspect-faces-charges/article_92603fb9-1cfb-40ab-9eda-ad8aa1f63e67.html
She explained that Garside drove her to an unknown cemetery, where they smoked methamphetamine. The woman claimed that Garside gave her some money and that she gave it back to him. She then drove the car and they went up to the Tantalus Drive, the hills.
The woman then stopped the car at some point along Tantalus Drive when Garside wanted her to go to a different place but she refused. Then, Garside allegedly shot her in close range which made her lose her hearing for a moment. Afterwards she opened the car door and ran to hide in some bushes until he left the area.
Shooter and victim smoked meth before he shot her after she refused sex. He's also a felon, so how did he get a gun? :grrr: ???
I've yet to see more than one or two on the anti-gun side actually define the "real problem." All they have are agendas they pretend are solutions. Yet, when you stop to think how any of their solutions would have stopped a single crime, you see the truth.
-
I've yet to see more than one or two on the anti-gun side actually define the "real problem." All they have are agendas they pretend are solutions. Yet, when you stop to think how any of their solutions would have stopped a single crime, you see the truth.
Yeah that’s what happens when every possible gun crime has already had a law against it on the books for decades now, and your true agenda is simply to disarm lawful U.S. citizens.
The sum total of Everytown for Internment Camps argument for SB401’s unconstitutional total ban on the sale of semiautomatic long guns boiled down to: “Some lunatic (most likely a tranny…) could use one in a mass shooting, someday, even though they’ve been lawful here since forever, and it hasn’t come close to happening yet.”
That’s it.
Then, when some Tarnass or Rhoadkill drafts the damn bill for them, they ritually begin by noting, what? …… THAT HAWAII RANKS NEAR THE BOTTOM OF GUN CRIME NATIONALLY, that’s what.
Now what was I going to say …. Oh yeah, it’s not possible to hate them enough.
-
Are guns the problem? Yes and no.
Guns do not make humans more violent, but they do make us capable of being more effective when they are violent.
The problem with this story is drugs and I would bet some other social ills that often tie into drug use.
But if the guy didn't have a gun he couldn't have shot her (obviously). Doesn't mean he wouldn't have still been violent, he might have still punched her, hit her with an object, etc. but she wouldn't have gotten shot.
For the sake of this issue I think it would be good to differentiate premeditated gun crimes and non-premedicated gun crimes. If I am going to target someone to kill them, rob them, etc then I am specifically arming myself and planning to use violence. However if I am not planning to be violent but a situation arises (bar fight, domestic argument, etc.) then there is a likelihood that what would have normally been a fistfight now becomes a murder. Not because I planned to commit a murder but because I now was in an aggressive state and I have a firearm so in my altered state of mind, I might now use it. I remember the story of a murder at a bar in Kaneohe, would have just been a fistfight most likely but the guy pulled out a knife and stabbed the other guy in the heart, killing him. Did the knife make him more aggressive? Probably not but it enabled him to kill the guy where before probably no one would have died.
So the gun isn't the problem, but it also isn't not part of the problem either.
I think the left has this myopic view about how gun regulations will solve the problem and there are certain logical elements to it but it is not a comprehensive view of the overall problem.
-
Are guns the problem? Yes and no.
??? ::) :crazy:
To me, guns are never the problem. Guns in the wrong hands are.
-
Are guns the problem? Yes and no.
Guns do not make humans more violent, but they do make us capable of being more effective when they are violent.
The problem with this story is drugs and I would bet some other social ills that often tie into drug use.
But if the guy didn't have a gun he couldn't have shot her (obviously). Doesn't mean he wouldn't have still been violent, he might have still punched her, hit her with an object, etc. but she wouldn't have gotten shot.
For the sake of this issue I think it would be good to differentiate premeditated gun crimes and non-premedicated gun crimes. If I am going to target someone to kill them, rob them, etc then I am specifically arming myself and planning to use violence. However if I am not planning to be violent but a situation arises (bar fight, domestic argument, etc.) then there is a likelihood that what would have normally been a fistfight now becomes a murder. Not because I planned to commit a murder but because I now was in an aggressive state and I have a firearm so in my altered state of mind, I might now use it. I remember the story of a murder at a bar in Kaneohe, would have just been a fistfight most likely but the guy pulled out a knife and stabbed the other guy in the heart, killing him. Did the knife make him more aggressive? Probably not but it enabled him to kill the guy where before probably no one would have died.
So the gun isn't the problem, but it also isn't not part of the problem either.
I think the left has this myopic view about how gun regulations will solve the problem and there are certain logical elements to it but it is not a comprehensive view of the overall problem.
Constitutional rights are the problem.
Were it not for protections of individual rights, the government could seize all firearms, thereby taking them out of the equation.
It's a two-way argument. If you think guns are at least part of the problem, then you must also believe that the Second Amendment prevents the only solution -- a complete and total ban of firearms in civilians hands.
Now let's do the 1st Amendment. People who speak against the government are creating division and tension. do away with that, and the nation will be healed by believing in what the government does. Think about all the anti-Trump press that would have never existed. trump would have been 1000 times more successful in his first term had the press and individuals been barred from calling him Hitler, a racist and a fascist.
The whole problem is Americans enjoy our freedoms so much, we take them for granted. it's the few among us who violate the trust freedom requires who demonstrate the downside of freedom.
Freedom, or security. It's not a thought experiment. The story has been played out time and time again throughout history.
-
Constitutional rights are the problem.
Were it not for protections of individual rights, the government could seize all firearms, thereby taking them out of the equation.
It's a two-way argument. If you think guns are at least part of the problem, then you must also believe that the Second Amendment prevents the only solution -- a complete and total ban of firearms in civilians hands.
I think this is a false dichotomy that only works if we think of gun violence as an all or nothing type thing but we know that while guns do correlate to higher murders, there are also other factors that play a role and that without those factors you can have high levels of gun ownership without high levels of murder.
The whole problem is Americans enjoy our freedoms so much, we take them for granted. it's the few among us who violate the trust freedom requires who demonstrate the downside of freedom.
Freedom, or security. It's not a thought experiment. The story has been played out time and time again throughout history.
I have thought about this freedom vs security quite a bit and I think it is not something we can put as one or the other, it is very much a sliding scale and we are always trying to find the right balance.
I often point out to people making arguments for stricter gun control that we could save far more lives, solve more social problems, and significantly reduce the number of firearm murders if we got rid of alcohol. Oddly enough they rarely want to admit or consider that option.
-
I think this is a false dichotomy that only works if we think of gun violence as an all or nothing type thing but we know that while guns do correlate to higher murders, there are also other factors that play a role and that without those factors you can have high levels of gun ownership without high levels of murder.
I have thought about this freedom vs security quite a bit and I think it is not something we can put as one or the other, it is very much a sliding scale and we are always trying to find the right balance.
I often point out to people making arguments for stricter gun control that we could save far more lives, solve more social problems, and significantly reduce the number of firearm murders if we got rid of alcohol. Oddly enough they rarely want to admit or consider that option.
Straw argument. I never said any of that. What i said was, you only eluded to a solution, which is the removal of guns from society. i went further to identify why that solution can't happen without the Constitution being changed (or ignored).
"Are guns the problem? Yes and no."
"So the gun isn't the problem, but it also isn't not part of the problem either."
In other words, there can never be a solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public. You can't declare guns to be not "not part of the problem either" and believe any solution other than 100% confiscation must also be part of the solution.
Any equivocation as to guns being the problem, even as a small part, means you must also believe guns must be eliminated to solve the problem.
-
This is all very philosophical, and that’s fine.
But, I believe any human being has the right to defend themselves or others against violence perpetrated against them by anything or anyone whatsoever, and that no man has the right to obstruct their ability to do so, whatsoever.
That some others use the same means that a moral man uses to accomplish that defense, for the purposes of crime, is an utterly separate issue indeed.
To point to this latter case as justification for obstructing a moral man’s ability to defend himself, is effectively, the promotion of a crime, one way or another.
-
Straw argument. I never said any of that. What i said was, you only eluded to a solution, which is the removal of guns from society. i went further to identify why that solution can't happen without the Constitution being changed (or ignored).
"Are guns the problem? Yes and no."
"So the gun isn't the problem, but it also isn't not part of the problem either."
In other words, there can never be a solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public. You can't declare guns to be not "not part of the problem either" and believe any solution other than 100% confiscation must also be part of the solution.
I was not saying that you were making a false dichotomy about the second amendment. Where I thought the false dichotomy was when you said
"If you think guns are at least part of the problem, then you must also believe that the Second Amendment prevents the only solution -- a complete and total ban of firearms in civilians hands."
Actually it is more of a non-sequitur but painting is as we either have the 2nd amendment or no privately owned arms is the false dichotomy because it isn't all or nothing.
"You can never have a perfect solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public" would be an accurate way of saying it.
Any equivocation as to guns being the problem, even as a small part, means you must also believe guns must be eliminated to solve the problem.
That is a non sequitur.
-
This is all very philosophical, and that’s fine.
But, I believe any human being has the right to defend themselves or others against violence perpetrated against them by anything or anyone whatsoever, and that no man has the right to obstruct their ability to do so, whatsoever.
That some others use the same means that a moral man uses to accomplish that defense, for the purposes of crime, is an utterly separate issue indeed.
To point to this latter case as justification for obstructing a moral man’s ability to defend himself, is effectively, the promotion of a crime, one way or another.
That's how a freedom-thinking person who believes in the means of self defense and the defense against tyranny would think.
He firmly believes guns are the problem, because guns allow people incapable of killing otherwise to use lethal force. Cops are often indoctrinated into the belief that fewer guns in the public's hands make their lives much safer. Therefore. they tend to fall on the anti-gun side of the argument even though they say they believe in the right to bear arms. if you haven't caught on yet, EEF falls into that grouping.
i think he struggles with cognitive dissonance when it comes to the right to own guns. He sees benefits to both a right to keep and bear arms as well as the hypothetical elimination of firearms in the hands of the public.
Until he's able to reconcile his quandary to a reasonable conclusion, I expect him to continue to espouse both a pro-2A and anti-gun position.
He proves this with:
"You can never have a perfect solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public" would be an accurate way of saying it.
-
This is all very philosophical, and that’s fine.
But, I believe any human being has the right to defend themselves or others against violence perpetrated against them by anything or anyone whatsoever, and that no man has the right to obstruct their ability to do so, whatsoever.
That some others use the same means that a moral man uses to accomplish that defense, for the purposes of crime, is an utterly separate issue indeed.
To point to this latter case as justification for obstructing a moral man’s ability to defend himself, is effectively, the promotion of a crime, one way or another.
I agree with you in principle however I think the reality with human beings is that we are not all that moral, or more accurately that we are not always consistently moral. Most humans can get angry at points in their life and we know that when we get angry our capability for high level reasoning starts to diminish. So, for example, if you had a few drinks at the bar and a guy shoves you for "giving stink eye" your brain (and mine too) is not going to think through pulling your concealed weapon out and using it in the same way that you would in a calm state. In this scenario, you are not an evil person going out looking to hurt someone, you are not an immoral criminal, but being human you are subject to emotional survival reactional responses that in hind sight would be a bad choice and the only difference between two sides with black eyes and a murder charge is the presence of the weapon. Humans, at our best, are rational beings, but often we are not at our best. Half of all murder suspects and half of all murder victims are found to be under the influence at the time of the murder.
Flapp, in his dishonesty, will have you believe in some strawman misrepresentation of what I said. I hope this helps expand on what I meant at by the firearm having a part to play.
-
I agree with you in principle however I think the reality with human beings is that we are not all that moral, or more accurately that we are not always consistently moral. Most humans can get angry at points in their life and we know that when we get angry our capability for high level reasoning starts to diminish. So, for example, if you had a few drinks at the bar and a guy shoves you for "giving stink eye" your brain (and mine too) is not going to think through pulling your concealed weapon out and using it in the same way that you would in a calm state. In this scenario, you are not an evil person going out looking to hurt someone, you are not an immoral criminal, but being human you are subject to emotional survival reactional responses that in hind sight would be a bad choice and the only difference between two sides with black eyes and a murder charge is the presence of the weapon. Humans, at our best, are rational beings, but often we are not at our best. Half of all murder suspects and half of all murder victims are found to be under the influence at the time of the murder. I hope that helps expand on what I meant at by the firearm having a part to play.
We should outlaw alcohol and illegal drugs. That'll fix it!
-
We should outlaw alcohol and illegal drugs. That'll fix it!
I am not going to engage with you if you continue to make dishonest strawman comments about my position.
-
I agree with you in principle however I think the reality with human beings is that we are not all that moral, or more accurately that we are not always consistently moral. Most humans can get angry at points in their life and we know that when we get angry our capability for high level reasoning starts to diminish. So, for example, if you had a few drinks at the bar and a guy shoves you for "giving stink eye" your brain (and mine too) is not going to think through pulling your concealed weapon out and using it in the same way that you would in a calm state. In this scenario, you are not an evil person going out looking to hurt someone, you are not an immoral criminal, but being human you are subject to emotional survival reactional responses that in hind sight would be a bad choice and the only difference between two sides with black eyes and a murder charge is the presence of the weapon. Humans, at our best, are rational beings, but often we are not at our best. Half of all murder suspects and half of all murder victims are found to be under the influence at the time of the murder.
Flapp, in his dishonesty, will have you believe in some strawman misrepresentation of what I said. I hope this helps expand on what I meant at by the firearm having a part to play.
As you’ve no doubt noticed, it seems I have an Old Testament mentality about pretty much everything.
I find thinking about shades of grey, well, kind of unpleasant.
I hear tell that I will be judged as I have judged others, so I guess I should look into this sooner rather than later ….
-
That's how a freedom-thinking person who believes in the means of self defense and the defense against tyranny would think.
He firmly believes guns are the problem, because guns allow people incapable of killing otherwise to use lethal force. Cops are often indoctrinated into the belief that fewer guns in the public's hands make their lives much safer. Therefore. they tend to fall on the anti-gun side of the argument even though they say they believe in the right to bear arms. if you haven't caught on yet, EEF falls into that grouping.
i think he struggles with cognitive dissonance when it comes to the right to own guns. He sees benefits to both a right to keep and bear arms as well as the hypothetical elimination of firearms in the hands of the public.
Until he's able to reconcile his quandary to a reasonable conclusion, I expect him to continue to espouse both a pro-2A and anti-gun position.
He proves this with:
"You can never have a perfect solution as long as guns are allowed to be in the hands of the public" would be an accurate way of saying it.
I think you do EEF a valuable service as an effective foil, and I learn much too from your thinking.
I think EEF does me a valuable service, because I tend to see those on the other side as not even human.
I admit that can’t be right ….. at least sometimes >:D
-
I am not going to engage with you if you continue to make dishonest strawman comments about my position.
Wanna bet?
#TheLastWord
-
As you’ve no doubt noticed, it seems I have an Old Testament mentality about pretty much everything.
I find thinking about shades of grey, well, kind of unpleasant.
I hear tell that I will be judged as I have judged others, so I guess I should look into this sooner rather than later ….
I had not noticed but that will help frame future comments for a better understanding.
I too have/had a tendency to see certain things in black and white but I try to balance that idealism and realism, with varying levels of success.
I tend not to go with the flow and if I see a flawed argument in favor of guns I will point it out even though it clearly goes against the aim of the pro gun community. This does not always put me in the best relations with the hardcore gun rights activists on this forum as you can tell by Flapp needing to have the last word. Maybe it is because I am a moderate, or maybe it is a stubborn attachment to accuracy and logical consistency but I do not see the gun rights argument as one without pros and cons on both sides. I frequently find myself reexamining my own positions on guns, trying to find the right balance of protection of gun rights and reasonable and effective gun control laws. I do not think we can leave firearms out of the conversation about the problem in the same way I don't think the left can focus only on firearms in conversations about the problem.
And thanks for your nice assessment of me
-
I had not noticed but that will help frame future comments for a better understanding.
I too have/had a tendency to see certain things in black and white but I try to balance that idealism and realism, with varying levels of success.
I tend not to go with the flow and if I see a flawed argument in favor of guns I will point it out even though it clearly goes against the aim of the pro gun community. This does not always put me in the best relations with the hardcore gun rights activists on this forum as you can tell by Flapp needing to have the last word. Maybe it is because I am a moderate, or maybe it is a stubborn attachment to accuracy and logical consistency but I do not see the gun rights argument as one without pros and cons on both sides. I frequently find myself reexamining my own positions on guns, trying to find the right balance of protection of gun rights and reasonable and effective gun control laws. I do not think we can leave firearms out of the conversation about the problem in the same way I don't think the left can focus only on firearms in conversations about the problem.
And thanks for your nice assessment of me
Hey I give you credit for standing up for your point of view in a space populated by hard-asses ready to fight at the drop of a hat.
That takes some balls.
I'm deeply suspicious of group think myself, but the truth is, these guys are just super serious, for very, very good reasons.
So we all get to fight another day - right?
All the best to those on this forum!
-
Humans are the problem. Not guns.
So what are we gonna do? Get rid of ourselves to solve the problem? Of course not.
Respect the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Actions have consequences. And this applies to both criminals and law-abiding citizens. Everybody.
Again, Actions have consequences. There's the solution. Will it eliminate crime? Murders? Accidental Death? Mass Shootings? No. Will it reduce it? I believe so.
Maybe that's the problem. People want a perfect solution. Hint: This is Reality. Not Fantasy Island. People need to wake up to accepting that all we can do is make the best of an imperfect world.
-
Hey I give you credit for standing up for your point of view in a space populated by hard-asses ready to fight at the drop of a hat.
That takes some balls.
I'm deeply suspicious of group think myself, but the truth is, these guys are just super serious, for very, very good reasons.
So we all get to fight another day - right?
All the best to those on this forum!
Give it time. U will figure out its not having balls. Its ego.
*update:
I left out that the people here aren't "hard-asses". We use logic and facts. If someone is wrong, we let them know and post the why with logic and facts. Think of it like explaining to an anti 2a person why your gun is protected by the 2a, and they refuse to listen to all the true data and facts. Instead they go by feelings, cherry picked info, and false data.
I have been proven wrong multiple times here when presenting with the correct info. I had no problem admitting I was wrong and the thread ended. But as you can see, threads go on and on and on when he refused to admit he was wrong and instead tries to dig himself out of the hole. Flapp is very good at posting detailed sources that are correct. I don't have the time to do so with him anymore.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I had not noticed but that will help frame future comments for a better understanding.
I too have/had a tendency to see certain things in black and white but I try to balance that idealism and realism, with varying levels of success.
I tend not to go with the flow and if I see a flawed argument in favor of guns I will point it out even though it clearly goes against the aim of the pro gun community. This does not always put me in the best relations with the hardcore gun rights activists on this forum as you can tell by Flapp needing to have the last word. Maybe it is because I am a moderate, or maybe it is a stubborn attachment to accuracy and logical consistency but I do not see the gun rights argument as one without pros and cons on both sides. I frequently find myself reexamining my own positions on guns, trying to find the right balance of protection of gun rights and reasonable and effective gun control laws. I do not think we can leave firearms out of the conversation about the problem in the same way I don't think the left can focus only on firearms in conversations about the problem.
And thanks for your nice assessment of me
Wow. Someone likes themselves wayyyyyyy too much.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Wow. Someone likes themselves wayyyyyyy too much.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbVZaHALmKQ
-
If he stabbed her she would probably be dead
-
officers almost killed by a skilled man - no knife, no gun
https://www.khon2.com/local-news/honolulu-police-release-bodycam-footage-of-fatal-nuuanu-officer-involved-shooting/
-
We are the problem. Not guns.
-
We are the problem. Not guns.
Get rid of all people, all people problems solved. ;D
-
I am not going to engage with you if you continue to make dishonest strawman comments about my position.
Challenge accepted!
Anything to keep you from arguing ad nauseam.
-
We use logic and facts. If someone is wrong, we let them know and post the why with logic and facts.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That was a good joke
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That was a good joke
See the type of reply.
-
Hey I give you credit for standing up for your point of view in a space populated by hard-asses ready to fight at the drop of a hat.
That takes some balls.
I'm deeply suspicious of group think myself, but the truth is, these guys are just super serious, for very, very good reasons.
So we all get to fight another day - right?
All the best to those on this forum!
Maybe more stubbornness than balls. A lot of people here are more keyboard warriors than hard asses. A good dozen or so of us clearly come here for the arguments.
I generally don't think people here argue with ill intent. As you can see Flapp and CMO keep trying to bait/troll me into pointless arguments but for the most part I think people here genuinely believe in their positions and have good intent. I find out things the left leaves out very often on this forum and I similarly find out things the right leaves out in discussions with left leaning people so I consider this forum useful as one part of many sources to have a more informed position.
-
A lot of people here are more keyboard warriors than hard asses. A good dozen or so of us clearly come here for the arguments.
I generally don't think people here argue with ill intent. As you can see Flapp and CMO keep trying to bait/troll me into pointless arguments but for the most part I think people here genuinely believe in their positions and have good intent. I find out things the left leaves out very often on this forum and I similarly find out things the right leaves out in discussions with left leaning people so I consider this forum useful as one part of many sources to have a more informed position.
WROONNNNGGGG again.
-
WROONNNNGGGG again.
What a devastating rebuttal (That was sarcasm)
-
What a devastating rebuttal (That was sarcasm)
How else does 1 point out you're wrong again due to the fact that you won't admit it, move goalpost, etc...
-
How else does 1 point out you're wrong again due to the fact that you won't admit it, move goalpost, etc...
You can't do something "again" if you have never done it before.
-
You can't do something "again" if you have never done it before.
Wow, so much wrong today. I hope Kalihi Uka is reading this to show I'm right.
Thanks for helping out.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That was a good joke
More sophomoric arguing and trolling.
:stopjack:
-
I left out that the people here aren't "hard-asses". We use logic and facts. If someone is wrong, we let them know and post the why with logic and facts. Think of it like explaining to an anti 2a person why your gun is protected by the 2a, and they refuse to listen to all the true data and facts. Instead they go by feelings, cherry picked info, and false data.
I have been proven wrong multiple times here when presenting with the correct info. I had no problem admitting I was wrong and the thread ended. But as you can see, threads go on and on and on when he refused to admit he was wrong and instead tries to dig himself out of the hole. Flapp is very good at posting detailed sources that are correct. I don't have the time to do so with him anymore.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Sorry if you took offense at my reference to folks around here as being hard asses.
In my world, that's a compliment.
-
Sorry if you took offense at my reference to folks around here as being hard asses.
In my world, that's a compliment.
One synonym for "hard ass' is "uncompromising."
i think certain members here are too willing to compromise with the anti-gun activists because they believe there is a solution we haven't yet found which will keep guns out of the wrong hands.
They don't see an agenda, only an attempt to "do something." Until a real solution of offered, i will continue to be a hard ass when dealing with anti-gun activists.
-
For some guns are the problem when the barrel is too hot, range too far...
-
One synonym for "hard ass' is "uncompromising."
i think certain members here are too willing to compromise with the anti-gun activists because they believe there is a solution we haven't yet found which will keep guns out of the wrong hands.
They don't see an agenda, only an attempt to "do something." Until a real solution of offered, i will continue to be a hard ass when dealing with anti-gun activists.
Compromises?
We don't need no stinkin compromises.
The only difference here is you guys seem to think EEF is from Mommies Demand Action.
I don't see it. I don't see any ill will - certainly no insidious "agenda."
Anyway, I got interested in this place because I'm fucking tired of us taking incoming fire from these fifth-column Marxists. I think they should be afraid of what we're going to do to THEIR agenda, rather than us bracing for their next salvo. I'l figure my way toward that objective, one way or another.
So, anyway, there's bigger fish to fry, than EEFish, in my view.
-
Compromises?
We don't need no stinkin compromises.
The only difference here is you guys seem to think EEF is from Mommies Demand Action.
I don't see it. I don't see any ill will - certainly no insidious "agenda."
Anyway, I got interested in this place because I'm fucking tired of us taking incoming fire from these fifth-column Marxists. I think they should be afraid of what we're going to do to THEIR agenda, rather than us bracing for their next salvo. I'l figure my way toward that objective, one way or another.
So, anyway, there's bigger fish to fry, than EEFish, in my view.
I don't and I'm sure others don't think EEF is from MDA. But EEF does support red flag laws. We had an entire thead about it. Synopis going from memory:
EEF stated "they can be constitutional"
I asked him to post 1 that is
He posted HI's one, but left out the most important part as usual, the no due process part
He then asked if I read every states red flag law as how do I know "they're unconstitutional" and I said yes I have.
He asked to post how they are constitutional, which is impossible as you cannot post something that doesn't exist.
This sums it up about red flag law.
-
Sorry if you took offense at my reference to folks around here as being hard asses.
In my world, that's a compliment.
I took no offence, I was just clarifying since it didn't apply to the issue.
-
Once guns stop being the problem (i.e. become banned), then knives will be the problem ... or at least kitchen knives with sharp points will be.
Nobody needs a sharp pointed kitchen knife!
https://youtube.com/shorts/wMjKhf9xj5I
-
More sophomoric arguing and trolling.
:stopjack:
^
Irony
-
Compromises?
We don't need no stinkin compromises.
Here is where we may differ.
Unless you are a true libertarian who believes there should be no restrictions on firearms at any level then there is some level of compromise. Positions on gun rights are really a spectrum issue from those who want to ban all guns, to those who want to ban only certain guns or guns owned by certain people, to limited restrictions, to no restrictions at all.
The people who want to ban all guns for all people are the extreme, the people that are probably too set in their ways to change their mind. However as you move more towards the middle I think the window opens up for more opportunity to change minds or come away with a better understanding even if we haven't swayed them yet. I don't like painting these people as our enemies or stupid as it only hurts our efforts to protect firearm rights. Realistically speaking there will always be some level of compromise because like it or not they get their vote as much as we get ours and a line will be drawn legally speaking. Compromise is necessary and sometimes we have to compromise a little bit or we lose and will be forced to compromise more.
If you are interested in my position on red flag laws I can summarize them for you because CMO's characterization is wrong.
-
Here is where we may differ.
Unless you are a true libertarian who believes there should be no restrictions on firearms at any level then there is some level of compromise. Positions on gun rights are really a spectrum issue from those who want to ban all guns, to those who want to ban only certain guns or guns owned by certain people, to limited restrictions, to no restrictions at all.
The people who want to ban all guns for all people are the extreme, the people that are probably too set in their ways to change their mind. However as you move more towards the middle I think the window opens up for more opportunity to change minds or come away with a better understanding even if we haven't swayed them yet. I don't like painting these people as our enemies or stupid as it only hurts our efforts to protect firearm rights. Realistically speaking there will always be some level of compromise because like it or not they get their vote as much as we get ours and a line will be drawn legally speaking. Compromise is necessary and sometimes we have to compromise a little bit or we lose and will be forced to compromise more.
If you are interested in my position on red flag laws I can summarize them for you because CMO's characterization is wrong.
The word "compromise" is thrown around by the anti 2a. A compromise is that both get something in return. Gun laws today don't give us anything in return. We have more than enough gun laws and should actually delete most.
Gun laws today are a shit sandwich and instead of eating the entire thing, you only have to eat half as they amend the OG bill to less restrictions. I'd rather not take a bite at all. Or if I do, I will if I get paid enough to do so. Now that's a "compromise".
There is nothing to "summarize" your position on red flag laws. All you have to do is post a constitutional one since you stated that they can be constitutional. We've gone over this for many and many pages.
Kalihi Uka, you will see more what I was talking about. His last sentence shows "because CMO's characterization is wrong "1 part I was talking about above.
-
Here is where we may differ.
Unless you are a true libertarian who believes there should be no restrictions on firearms at any level then there is some level of compromise. Positions on gun rights are really a spectrum issue from those who want to ban all guns, to those who want to ban only certain guns or guns owned by certain people, to limited restrictions, to no restrictions at all.
The people who want to ban all guns for all people are the extreme, the people that are probably too set in their ways to change their mind. However as you move more towards the middle I think the window opens up for more opportunity to change minds or come away with a better understanding even if we haven't swayed them yet. I don't like painting these people as our enemies or stupid as it only hurts our efforts to protect firearm rights. Realistically speaking there will always be some level of compromise because like it or not they get their vote as much as we get ours and a line will be drawn legally speaking. Compromise is necessary and sometimes we have to compromise a little bit or we lose and will be forced to compromise more.
If you are interested in my position on red flag laws I can summarize them for you because CMO's characterization is wrong.
I think of the 2A as a principle.
Then there are the ways, or avenues, or material things, which are fully consistent with upholding the essence of that principle.
I believe in no compromises whatsoever with respect to upholding the essence of principles, as best we broken mortals can grasp those essences.
So I don’t think the analogy of a spectrum of give and take with those averse to a principle is a valid analogy, because it completely disregards the inherent nature of what a principle is. From the git go, it frames a principle as not really being a principle at all, and perhaps that is in fact the strategy of such an analogy, or ploy. It throws the principle onto broken ground, and if you accept that frame of argument, well, you’ve already lost.
Concretely, with respect to the 2A, if you take the principle to be the right of the individual citizen to have the means to defend himself against organized tyranny, well then, limiting that defense to only allow semiautomatic long guns is already hollowing out the core principle to a significant degree given the armaments available to local authorities, should they target civilians.
On the other hand though, the deterrent effect certainly remains to support the principle, and that’s what we really want, right? I don’t want to ever have to use my firearms on any other human being unless all other options for me have been exhausted - and nobody here disagrees with that.
Always carefully assess the ground your opponent has chosen for a fight. Unless he’s chosen it very foolishly, you want to throw him out of it.
-
When pro-2a constituents compromise, they give up something. For example: standard capacity magazines > 10rds, concealed carry in almost all public places, owning suppressors, etc.
When anti-2A constituents compromise, they graciously agree to fewer restrictions and prohibitions than they wanted. But in reality, they gave nothing up other than part of their demands.
That's not compromise ... that's acquiescing. One might go so far as to label it surrendering.
There's an age old analogy about this gun compromise lie:
if I have a pie, but you tell me you want it, I might say, "No. It's my pie."
Then you tell me, "Okay. Then just give me half."
Again, I say, "No. I don't want to give you any of my pie."
Then you accuse me of being unwilling to compromise.
That's usually how the gun control laws work. It's all a trick to make you thankful they didn't take it all.
-
Damn.
I got tricked into a long, drawn out philosophical exercise and now my head hurts.
… and I don’t even have any shochu for Happy Hour :(
-
Damn.
I got tricked into a long, drawn out philosophical exercise and now my head hurts.
… and I don’t even have any shochu for Happy Hour :(
(https://i.imgur.com/FPdWTjt.png)
-
Damn.
I got tricked into a long, drawn out philosophical exercise and now my head hurts.
… and I don’t even have any shochu for Happy Hour :(
I look at it this way. If it causes me to think more, then this will give me more that I can bring to the table when talking to someone who's anti 2a or to our politicians or when submitting testimonies.
Provided that the post I'm reading is useful and not full of BS.
But it's also important not to burn out because you gotta be fresh when the next legislative session starts. Our anti 2a polticians can ask questions if you show up in person.
When banning under 21 from buying ammo, the anti 2A politician Rhodes asked the NRA-ILA Hawaii rep Kevin why it's OK to ban cigs for those under 21 and not ammo. Unfortunatlly, he didn't have an answer. I raised my hand in the zoom, but wasn't called upon. I would have stated, cigs aren't protected by the bill of rights, so you can deem any age you want. But ammo/guns are protected (2a). Then I would have went on to booze. 1 amendment states to ban booze and was during the Al Capone prohibition days. Then another amendment repealled that and said each state can decide what booze laws they want. And booze too isn't protected by the Constitution.
Maybe that's why I wasn't called on as they are aware of my education on the 2A.
-
I think of the 2A as a principle.
Then there are the ways, or avenues, or material things, which are fully consistent with upholding the essence of that principle.
I believe in no compromises whatsoever with respect to upholding the essence of principles, as best we broken mortals can grasp those essences.
So I don’t think the analogy of a spectrum of give and take with those averse to a principle is a valid analogy, because it completely disregards the inherent nature of what a principle is. From the git go, it frames a principle as not really being a principle at all, and perhaps that is in fact the strategy of such an analogy, or ploy. It throws the principle onto broken ground, and if you accept that frame of argument, well, you’ve already lost.
Concretely, with respect to the 2A, if you take the principle to be the right of the individual citizen to have the means to defend himself against organized tyranny, well then, limiting that defense to only allow semiautomatic long guns is already hollowing out the core principle to a significant degree given the armaments available to local authorities, should they target civilians.
On the other hand though, the deterrent effect certainly remains to support the principle, and that’s what we really want, right? I don’t want to ever have to use my firearms on any other human being unless all other options for me have been exhausted - and nobody here disagrees with that.
Always carefully assess the ground your opponent has chosen for a fight. Unless he’s chosen it very foolishly, you want to throw him out of it.
I agree with you on the 2nd amendment principle.
I think a good political parallel regarding compromise can be the abortion debate. You have the hard core who demand abortion be illegal in almost all cases, you have the opposite hard core who believe it should never be restricted, then you have the middle who want some restriction but not too much. Maybe a 15 week limit or a 12 week limit or 6 week limit. The problem for the die hard pro-life side is that if they get a bill proposed or a candidate picked in a primary who has that no-compromise position then you have a candidate who will alienate too many people in the middle. If that happens then their candidate doesn't get enough votes to win the general election and instead of a moderate republican who would push a 12 week limit, you get a democrat who might push a 20 week limit or no limit at all. End result is that you have more legal abortions by taking the harder stance than if the party took a moderate stance of allowing some abortions.
If I ran for office and came out with an uncompromising view on gun rights saying that all guns should be legal for all individuals, I might win a primary but then lose a general election because my position is too far right for the majority. End result would be legislation less friendly to gun rights. To put that in more practical terms I think that means we need to understand that some level of restrictions are necessary, even if we don't agree with them in principle, to keep the situation from going too violent to where public opinion starts to swing left and we risk losing even more rights. For example lets say a mentally unstable person/terrorist/gang banger buys a gun and shoots up a school, this sways public, they ask how that person could get a gun. In response we can take two options, consider some form of gun control, or stone wall saying we mustn't compromise. Stone walling is, I argue, bad for us on many levels, both optically and practically in terms of protecting out gun rights and addressing the problem so it is in our interest to concede certain restrictions on firearms (arms in general) to both protect our rights and address the problem of gun violence.
I don't really agree with the way some others paint the issue in terms of a compromise because they paint the compromise as only one side giving up something but that is looking at it only from their side. Simplistically put you could say one side wants no guns in their country, the other wants lots, the compromise is some guns, but sides are giving up something they want. On top of that I don't know that it would be that accurate to paint democracy as a compromise in the first place. Bills are made, votes are cast representing a population (in theory) and law is made. Compromise may have been made somewhere but the democratic process is not about compromise, it is about our voices being represented. Sometimes we don't get what we want because the majority wants something different and that doesn't mean we compromised anything, we just lost the vote. Yes I know enshrined rights are not supposed to be overridden by popular vote but that is a separate issue as I am only focusing on the use of the word compromise in this discussion.
There are all sorts of ways to try and control guns to affect the gun violence problem, registration, background checks, permits to purchase, purchase waiting periods, red flag laws, restrictions on certain types of guns, etc. I think we are best served supporting approaches that can have the maximum safety effect with minimum level of intrusion into gun rights.
-
not everything is a conspiracy...
I look at it this way. If it causes me to think more, then this will give me more that I can bring to the table when talking to someone who's anti 2a or to our politicians or when submitting testimonies.
Provided that the post I'm reading is useful and not full of BS.
But it's also important not to burn out because you gotta be fresh when the next legislative session starts. Our anti 2a polticians can ask questions if you show up in person.
When banning under 21 from buying ammo, the anti 2A politician Rhodes asked the NRA-ILA Hawaii rep Kevin why it's OK to ban cigs for those under 21 and not ammo. Unfortunatlly, he didn't have an answer. I raised my hand in the zoom, but wasn't called upon. I would have stated, cigs aren't protected by the bill of rights, so you can deem any age you want. But ammo/guns are protected (2a). Then I would have went on to booze. 1 amendment states to ban booze and was during the Al Capone prohibition days. Then another amendment repealled that and said each state can decide what booze laws they want. And booze too isn't protected by the Constitution.
Maybe that's why I wasn't called on as they are aware of my education on the 2A.
-
[1] I agree with you on the 2nd amendment principle.
[snipping lots of rambling and qualifying of comments made]
[2] I think we are best served supporting approaches that can have the maximum safety effect with minimum level of intrusion into gun rights.
Those two statements are mutually exclusive and unconstitutional as pointed out by the US Supreme Court.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court issued a decision that, among other things, said the following:
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed
a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges
that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that
two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly
consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second
Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald
do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
If you continue reading the decision, you'll see that the "means-end scrutiny" includes the state's weighing of public safety against the ability of the individual to exercise a constitutionally protected right. No other item in the Bill of Rights can be limited because the state deems it in the interest of the public at large, which makes laws that do so with regard to the Second Amendment inconsistent.
I'n 5th grader terms, you can't take away, nor limit, my rights just because you feel it benefits society as a whole.
-
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court issued a decision that, among other things, said the following:
Quote
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed
a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges
that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that
two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly
consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second
Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald
do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15
If you continue reading the decision, you'll see that the "means-end scrutiny" includes the state's weighing of public safety against the ability of the individual to exercise a constitutionally protected right. No other item in the Bill of Rights can be limited because the state deems it in the interest of the public at large, which makes laws that do so with regard to the Second Amendment inconsistent.
I'n 5th grader terms, you can't take away, nor limit, my rights just because you feel it benefits society as a whole.
Hey thanks for this!
I have discovered that one can learn something from actually reading the court’s decisions - who knew?
“means-end scrutiny” versus “analogy of a spectrum of give and take with those averse to a principle.”
The former being the product of high intellect.
The latter the product of smoking buds every day before school in the canal at Kalani for three years.
-
Hey thanks for this!
I have discovered that one can learn something from actually reading the court’s decisions - who knew?
“means-end scrutiny” versus “analogy of a spectrum of give and take with those averse to a principle.”
The former being the product of high intellect.
The latter the product of smoking buds every day before school in the canal at Kalani for three years.
Unfortunately, the courts rarely dumb their publications down for the masses. Instead, they use specific language that's been used the same way in the past so the legal decisions 'flow" from case to case and court to court. Often the language used is "legalese", so even if you do hire a lawyer to explain it to you, their interpretation doesn't always align with how a specific judge or jury has, or will, interpret it.
Anyway, Bruen basically hit the reset button in states that were passing and upholding bad laws. While the Supreme Court maintained a Liberal majority, gun cases that should have been appealed were placed on the back-burner until a more conservative and 2A friendly majority was seated. We have Trump to thank for that. If Hillary had won, I shiver at the thought of where the 2A would be now.
The post-Bruen situation is that 2-step test has been replaced with 2 separate tests:
(1) does the case fall within the scope of the Second Amendment? and
(2) is there a historical analogue which demonstrates a tradition of similar laws, limits and restrictions? Historical means "around the time the Constitution and Second Amendment were enacted.
If you read some of the recent, post-Bruen cases, you'll see how easy it is to satisfy he first test. But the second one is much more difficult, which is why some of the analogues the government comes up with to support their case are so comical. They are reaching for straws, and it's just too obvious. Some are actually using racist, anti-slavery laws meant to disarm blacks as "historical analogues."
-
Unfortunately, the courts rarely dumb their publications down for the masses. Instead, they use specific language that's been used the same way in the past so the legal decisions 'flow" from case to case and court to court. Often the language used is "legalese", so even if you do hire a lawyer to explain it to you, their interpretation doesn't always align with how a specific judge or jury has, or will, interpret it.
Anyway, Bruen basically hit the reset button in states that were passing and upholding bad laws. While the Supreme Court maintained a Liberal majority, gun cases that should have been appealed were placed on the back-burner until a more conservative and 2A friendly majority was seated. We have Trump to thank for that. If Hillary had won, I shiver at the thought of where the 2A would be now.
The post-Bruen situation is that 2-step test has been replaced with 2 separate tests:
(1) does the case fall within the scope of the Second Amendment? and
(2) is there a historical analogue which demonstrates a tradition of similar laws, limits and restrictions? Historical means "around the time the Constitution and Second Amendment were enacted.
If you read some of the recent, post-Bruen cases, you'll see how easy it is to satisfy he first test. But the second one is much more difficult, which is why some of the analogues the government comes up with to support their case are so comical. They are reaching for straws, and it's just too obvious. Some are actually using racist, anti-slavery laws meant to disarm blacks as "historical analogues."
Much obliged fur the learnin pardner!
-
not everything is a conspiracy...
Macsak must have been a sniper. No one is entirely safe at any point in time …. he he
-
I agree with you on the 2nd amendment principle.
I think a good political parallel regarding compromise can be the abortion debate. You have the hard core who demand abortion be illegal in almost all cases, you have the opposite hard core who believe it should never be restricted, then you have the middle who want some restriction but not too much. Maybe a 15 week limit or a 12 week limit or 6 week limit. The problem for the die hard pro-life side is that if they get a bill proposed or a candidate picked in a primary who has that no-compromise position then you have a candidate who will alienate too many people in the middle. If that happens then their candidate doesn't get enough votes to win the general election and instead of a moderate republican who would push a 12 week limit, you get a democrat who might push a 20 week limit or no limit at all. End result is that you have more legal abortions by taking the harder stance than if the party took a moderate stance of allowing some abortions.
If I ran for office and came out with an uncompromising view on gun rights saying that all guns should be legal for all individuals, I might win a primary but then lose a general election because my position is too far right for the majority. End result would be legislation less friendly to gun rights. To put that in more practical terms I think that means we need to understand that some level of restrictions are necessary, even if we don't agree with them in principle, to keep the situation from going too violent to where public opinion starts to swing left and we risk losing even more rights. For example lets say a mentally unstable person/terrorist/gang banger buys a gun and shoots up a school, this sways public, they ask how that person could get a gun. In response we can take two options, consider some form of gun control, or stone wall saying we mustn't compromise. Stone walling is, I argue, bad for us on many levels, both optically and practically in terms of protecting out gun rights and addressing the problem so it is in our interest to concede certain restrictions on firearms (arms in general) to both protect our rights and address the problem of gun violence.
I don't really agree with the way some others paint the issue in terms of a compromise because they paint the compromise as only one side giving up something but that is looking at it only from their side. Simplistically put you could say one side wants no guns in their country, the other wants lots, the compromise is some guns, but sides are giving up something they want. On top of that I don't know that it would be that accurate to paint democracy as a compromise in the first place. Bills are made, votes are cast representing a population (in theory) and law is made. Compromise may have been made somewhere but the democratic process is not about compromise, it is about our voices being represented. Sometimes we don't get what we want because the majority wants something different and that doesn't mean we compromised anything, we just lost the vote. Yes I know enshrined rights are not supposed to be overridden by popular vote but that is a separate issue as I am only focusing on the use of the word compromise in this discussion.
There are all sorts of ways to try and control guns to affect the gun violence problem, registration, background checks, permits to purchase, purchase waiting periods, red flag laws, restrictions on certain types of guns, etc. I think we are best served supporting approaches that can have the maximum safety effect with minimum level of intrusion into gun rights.
You make some good points with respect to politics, especially politics here.
It’s beyond me, however I’m super happy to see some pro 2A people like us getting into the legislature. I should try to understand better how they’re winning - maybe rural versus urban electorate?
-
You make some good points with respect to politics, especially politics here.
It’s beyond me, however I’m super happy to see some pro 2A people like us getting into the legislature. I should try to understand better how they’re winning - maybe rural versus urban electorate?
They have money to spend on marketing and payroll and the media supports them.
We are all doing this for free.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Those two statements are mutually exclusive and unconstitutional as pointed out by the US Supreme Court.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court issued a decision that, among other things, said the following:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
If you continue reading the decision, you'll see that the "means-end scrutiny" includes the state's weighing of public safety against the ability of the individual to exercise a constitutionally protected right. No other item in the Bill of Rights can be limited because the state deems it in the interest of the public at large, which makes laws that do so with regard to the Second Amendment inconsistent.
I'n 5th grader terms, you can't take away, nor limit, my rights just because you feel it benefits society as a whole.
Good point
I don't think it is accurate to say no other item can be limited because of public interest. The most simple example would be how you could be denied a request to hold a noisy political rally at 2am in a residential area. In a much more touchy subject, the government justifies vaccine mandates and other health related controls during an epidemic because of public interest. Bruen would apply to the 2nd amendment but it might be a mistake to assume that mean-end scrutiny can't be applied to any other rights related issues.
-
Good point
I don't think it is accurate to say no other item can be limited because of public interest. The most simple example would be how you could be denied a request to hold a noisy political rally at 2am in a residential area. In a much more touchy subject, the government justifies vaccine mandates and other health related controls during an epidemic because of public interest. Bruen would apply to the 2nd amendment but it might be a mistake to assume that mean-end scrutiny can't be applied to any other rights related issues.
Is your example real or just a hypothetical? Flapps post said "No other item in the Bill of Rights can be limited because the state deems it in the interest of the public at large". Which means if you don't think the state can do this, then you have to provide a real example of a noisy political rally at 2a being denied. That's why I'm asking you to clarify your example.
-
Good point
I don't think it is accurate to say no other item can be limited because of public interest. The most simple example would be how you could be denied a request to hold a noisy political rally at 2am in a residential area. In a much more touchy subject, the government justifies vaccine mandates and other health related controls during an epidemic because of public interest. Bruen would apply to the 2nd amendment but it might be a mistake to assume that mean-end scrutiny can't be applied to any other rights related issues.
I never said there couldn't be limits on where, when or how you can exercise your rights.
A 2AM political rally is a horrible example. Who is going to attend? How many more people are you going to alienate from your cause by disrupting people's sleep?
Nobody is limiting what you can say, they are just making you respect the RIGHTS of others to peacefully enjoy their lives without being kept awake by loud noises. It falls under the heading of "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." The same would apply to target practice in your back yard at 2am if you have neighbors. But, if someone is breaking into your house at 2am, you have every right to lawfully discharge your firearm in defense of self, others and/or property.
That's completely different from benefiting society at large. Society has no right to feel safe. In fact, society has no constitutionally guaranteed rights at all. Show me one right under the Constitution's Bill of Rights which addresses anything other than individual rights. To keep and bear arms, to vote, to be secure in their private letters and property, to express opinions and themselves, to worship as they choose .... each and every one is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT protected against government infringement.
BTW, there is no 1A restriction against yelling fire in a crowded theater -- because there might actually be a fire justifying such. Instead, the laws are in place to punish ABUSE of the right of free speech in cases of inciting violence or injury to theater-goers from a false announcement of a nonexistent fire. Nobody says you can't say it, just be prepared to accept the consequences if you abuse the right to hurt others (that end of my nose thing again).
-
I never said there couldn't be limits on where, when or how you can exercise your rights.
A 2AM political rally is a horrible example. Who is going to attend? How many more people are you going to alienate from your cause by disrupting people's sleep?
Nobody is limiting what you can say, they are just making you respect the RIGHTS of others to peacefully enjoy their lives without being kept awake by loud noises. It falls under the heading of "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." The same would apply to target practice in your back yard at 2am if you have neighbors. But, if someone is breaking into your house at 2am, you have every right to lawfully discharge your firearm in defense of self, others and/or property.
That's completely different from benefiting society at large. Society has no right to feel safe. In fact, society has no constitutionally guaranteed rights at all. Show me one right under the Constitution's Bill of Rights which addresses anything other than individual rights. To keep and bear arms, to vote, to be secure in their private letters and property, to express opinions and themselves, to worship as they choose .... each and every one is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT protected against government infringement.
BTW, there is no 1A restriction against yelling fire in a crowded theater -- because there might actually be a fire justifying such. Instead, the laws are in place to punish ABUSE of the right of free speech in cases of inciting violence or injury to theater-goers from a false announcement of a nonexistent fire. Nobody says you can't say it, just be prepared to accept the consequences if you abuse the right to hurt others (that end of my nose thing again).
The point of the political rally is not whether it would be effective for the group seeking to hold it, the point is that it would not be allowed because of the interest of the public. If you had a 100 acre farm and wanted to hold a 2am political rally you could because it wouldn't affect the community.
Here is a case example since CMO asked
Case Name: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Decision: The Court held that although music is a form of protected expression, the city could regulate volume levels at concerts in Central Park to prevent excessive noise disturbing nearby residents without violating the First Amendment.
Some rights mentioned in the bill of rights speak of the right of "the people", other rights do not say "the people" but address the rights on a level of the individual. For example the 5th amendment says "no person", the 6th mentions "the accused". The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community. If the 2nd amendment applied to an individual then it would stand to reason that no person could be denied the right to own firearms yet we have laws that restrict the ownership of firearms (minors, felons, people convicted of domestic violence, mentally handicapped, etc.) Compare that to individual rights where even people convicted of felonies, minors, etc. still get legal protections.
-
The point of the political rally is not whether it would be effective for the group seeking to hold it, the point is that it would not be allowed because of the interest of the public. If you had a 100 acre farm and wanted to hold a 2am political rally you could because it wouldn't affect the community.
Here is a case example since CMO asked
Case Name: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Decision: The Court held that although music is a form of protected expression, the city could regulate volume levels at concerts in Central Park to prevent excessive noise disturbing nearby residents without violating the First Amendment.
Some rights mentioned in the bill of rights speak of the right of "the people", other rights do not say "the people" but address the rights on a level of the individual. For example the 5th amendment says "no person", the 6th mentions "the accused". The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community. If the 2nd amendment applied to an individual then it would stand to reason that no person could be denied the right to own firearms yet we have laws that restrict the ownership of firearms (minors, felons, people convicted of domestic violence, mentally handicapped, etc.) Compare that to individual rights where even people convicted of felonies, minors, etc. still get legal protections.
Your example said "denied a request to hold a noisy..."
What you typed above was the city could regulate volume levels. Which implies that there is no "denial". Unless you forgot to type that part out too.
More proof of your bad examples.
-
The point of the political rally is not whether it would be effective for the group seeking to hold it, the point is that it would not be allowed because of the interest of the public. If you had a 100 acre farm and wanted to hold a 2am political rally you could because it wouldn't affect the community.
Here is a case example since CMO asked
Case Name: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Decision: The Court held that although music is a form of protected expression, the city could regulate volume levels at concerts in Central Park to prevent excessive noise disturbing nearby residents without violating the First Amendment.
Some rights mentioned in the bill of rights speak of the right of "the people", other rights do not say "the people" but address the rights on a level of the individual. For example the 5th amendment says "no person", the 6th mentions "the accused". The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community. If the 2nd amendment applied to an individual then it would stand to reason that no person could be denied the right to own firearms yet we have laws that restrict the ownership of firearms (minors, felons, people convicted of domestic violence, mentally handicapped, etc.) Compare that to individual rights where even people convicted of felonies, minors, etc. still get legal protections.
Wrong.
The Second Amendment is an individual right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home. That Amendment plainly states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Please show documented legal support for your belief that "The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community," with something other than words spilling out of your head.
-
Good point
I don't think it is accurate to say no other item can be limited because of public interest. The most simple example would be how you could be denied a request to hold a noisy political rally at 2am in a residential area. In a much more touchy subject, the government justifies vaccine mandates and other health related controls during an epidemic because of public interest. Bruen would apply to the 2nd amendment but it might be a mistake to assume that mean-end scrutiny can't be applied to any other rights related issues.
I had to come back and correct your other "points".
When it comes to vaccinations and public safety, there is a presumption that the vaccine is safe and effective. However, if anyone rejects that notion and instead wishes to rely on their religious beliefs -- whether that means vaccines are deemed to be against their teachings or that the mandatory nature of it conflicts with their teachings -- then the INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT under the 1A prevails. That means the government cannot violate your 1A right to the presumed benefit of society when mandating vaccinations.
That same argument holds true to birth control and abortions. An insurer may not charge you for premiums on a policy that includes abortions for all covered individuals if that practice violates your religious beliefs. That would be like sending USAID money to Satan Worshipers, which I suspect may potentially be happening anyway.
You've tried to conjure up what-about-this examples but failed. Please show where what you CLAIM has actually occurred when it comes to the Bill of Rights -- that being that the rights have been violated or limited in favor of benefitting society at large.
The freedom of religion can be restricted if their practices constitute a threat to the public order and the rights of others. in most instances, if the religion, cult, whatever practices their teachings in a way that conforms to society's expectations, such as sanitation, treatment of animals, public decency and noise restrictions, etc., they are free to practice as they wish.
Take that example and apply it to all other rights. You'll see that "public benefit" does NOT trump individual rights if the rights are exercised within reasonable bounds (that includes your 2am protest march). i know of no reasonable justification for marching at 2am to protest the government. Most protesters don't have jobs, so it's not like they have to miss work!
-
Maybe this will help anyone who doesn't fully understand what the means-end scrutiny test is, and why it's part of the process for determining constitutionality of government actions/laws. After Bruen, the courts must use the Text, History and Tradition test instead of the 9th Circus' version that says that a gun law is constitutional if it "is reasonably related to the government’s interest in reducing gun violence." Talk about a subjective test for ones rights!
I think EEF would be a proper fit on the 9th Circuit Court given that our actual laws and constitutional rights are pliable in his view based on the needs of the government and society.
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1557&context=llr
-
Going back to the vaccine mandates, I can recall so clearly (and certainly so can most reading this) the black threat that rolled over the land ahead of the mRNA injections, as virtually overnight, every hive meat-puppet in the land began gleefully murmuring about Jacobson v. Massachusetts, and how it was law that all citizens must submit to government sanctioned injections once they are decreed.
It was like this concept and ridiculously obscure Supreme Court case were sent out from every cell tower and received by tiny chips implanted in their heads. All saying the exact same thing, from politicians to academics, to the nose-ringed baristas at Starbucks.
ALL OF THEM KNOWING EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT IT WAS.
They were going to use the full force of law, and every node of authority they had infiltrated in every strata of society, to force this on each citizen. They themselves of course eager for it, yes, just like it was some sacrament of THE STATE.
At that moment, any last shred of belief that I had that we live in an intrinsically civilized and lawful society where the atrocities of human history could never impinge again, was wiped out.
On planet earth, there is no law or security for any society except for that which is backed by force.
I am certain that the totalitarians, to this day, cannot grasp that millions of people were forced to this same understanding by what they attempted with COVID. They are baffled by their stunning political loses in its wake. Being totalitarians, they are perfectly incapable of associating the one with the other, which is why they’re equally incapable of ever stopping.
So we strengthen up, organize up, prep up, and step up to face off with them, because the time for wishful thinking is long gone.
-
Wrong.
The Second Amendment is an individual right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home. That Amendment plainly states:
Please show documented legal support for your belief that "The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community," with something other than words spilling out of your head.
I quoted the words of the Bill of Rights, so no, not wrong.
I gave you concrete examples, which you ignored, of how some rights listed as being of "the people" have been restricted to certain individuals while individual rights are maintained by every individual so don't go pretending I made something up out of nothing. I also gave examples of when collective rights can be restricted.
Note that I am not making the argument that the government can freely infringe on the rights of any individual merely because the amendment says "the people" instead of the individual. I still agree that any individual denied a right whether it was an individual right or a collective right (the people) but there is a difference between a collective right and an individual right.
The SCOTUS decided in Heller to interpret "the people" to include the individual, I am not disputing that. There are different views on how to interpret the text of the constitution and the court in Heller decided to interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right compared to a collective right. That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, rather it just tells us how the government is to apply the 2nd amendment.
https://ivn.us/2012/12/21/second-amendment-individual-rights-vs-collective-rights
On top of this particular question is another key question on whether a restriction/regulation actually infringes on the second amendment. So even if we settle a question about whether firearm rights are protected at the individual level the next question to answer is whether the law infringes on the right.
-
Your example said "denied a request to hold a noisy..."
What you typed above was the city could regulate volume levels.
You are trying to split two things that go together without even putting much thought into it. Yes, the city can regulate volume levels at certain times even though that means a political or religious really would be prevented from holding its function. The fact is that the first amendment doesn't trump any and all other regulations, it is not something that cannot be restricted in specific ways.
-
I quoted the words of the Bill of Rights, so no, not wrong.
I gave you concrete examples, which you ignored, of how some rights listed as being of "the people" have been restricted to certain individuals while individual rights are maintained by every individual so don't go pretending I made something up out of nothing. I also gave examples of when collective rights can be restricted.
Note that I am not making the argument that the government can freely infringe on the rights of any individual merely because the amendment says "the people" instead of the individual. I still agree that any individual denied a right whether it was an individual right or a collective right (the people) but there is a difference between a collective right and an individual right.
The SCOTUS decided in Heller to interpret "the people" to include the individual, I am not disputing that. There are different views on how to interpret the text of the constitution and the court in Heller decided to interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right compared to a collective right. That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, rather it just tells us how the government is to apply the 2nd amendment.
https://ivn.us/2012/12/21/second-amendment-individual-rights-vs-collective-rights
On top of this particular question is another key question on whether a restriction/regulation actually infringes on the second amendment. So even if we settle a question about whether firearm rights are protected at the individual level the next question to answer is whether the law infringes on the right.
Explain how "the people" are capable of exercising a "collective right" WITHOUT each individual being independently capable of exercising that right.
Unless you can find some way for that to happen, then you're arguing a distinction without a difference.
-
I had to come back and correct your other "points".
When it comes to vaccinations and public safety, there is a presumption that the vaccine is safe and effective. However, if anyone rejects that notion and instead wishes to rely on their religious beliefs -- whether that means vaccines are deemed to be against their teachings or that the mandatory nature of it conflicts with their teachings -- then the INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT under the 1A prevails. That means the government cannot violate your 1A right to the presumed benefit of society when mandating vaccinations.
That same argument holds true to birth control and abortions. An insurer may not charge you for premiums on a policy that includes abortions for all covered individuals if that practice violates your religious beliefs. That would be like sending USAID money to Satan Worshipers, which I suspect may potentially be happening anyway.
You've tried to conjure up what-about-this examples but failed. Please show where what you CLAIM has actually occurred when it comes to the Bill of Rights -- that being that the rights have been violated or limited in favor of benefitting society at large.
The freedom of religion can be restricted if their practices constitute a threat to the public order and the rights of others. in most instances, if the religion, cult, whatever practices their teachings in a way that conforms to society's expectations, such as sanitation, treatment of animals, public decency and noise restrictions, etc., they are free to practice as they wish.
Take that example and apply it to all other rights. You'll see that "public benefit" does NOT trump individual rights if the rights are exercised within reasonable bounds (that includes your 2am protest march). i know of no reasonable justification for marching at 2am to protest the government. Most protesters don't have jobs, so it's not like they have to miss work!
You are applying your own test of reasonableness when looking at the regulations on noisy gatherings, that's not how rights work. It doesn't matter whether you or I think it makes sense to have a 2am protest, the question is whether the government can restrict the protest in the interest of the community. If the 1st amendment was never trumped by the interested of the community then it would be impossible to ever prohibit a political or religious rally. The test here is that the regulation cannot be content based meaning that the city can deny a 2am rally because it is too noisy for the community, but they cannot deny the 2am rally based on the message of the rally.
Regarding the vaccine mandate question, the supreme court did hear a case on this, Zucht v. King
Supreme Court Decision: The Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Louis Brandeis, ruled that public health and safety laws, including vaccination requirements, fall within the police powers of the state. The Court affirmed the validity of such ordinances, citing a precedent in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) which upheld the state's authority to mandate vaccinations for public health purposes, even in the absence of a public health emergency.
When I mentioned an epidemic the issue isn't just related to vaccine mandates either, it encompasses all sorts of issues including travel, detaining someone who is sick, requiring a mask to be worn, etc.
-
Explain how "the people" are capable of exercising a "collective right" WITHOUT each individual being independently capable of exercising that right.
Unless you can find some way for that to happen, then you're arguing a distinction without a difference.
I never made an argument that people can exercise a collective right without the individual being able to exercise the right. I only showed that there are times where individuals have been denied collective rights even though they are not denied individual rights.
You can take up an argument of individual rights vs collective rights with legal scholars if you wish to tell them there isn't a difference.
-
I am certain that the totalitarians, to this day, cannot grasp that millions of people were forced to this same understanding by what they attempted with COVID. They are baffled by their stunning political loses in its wake. Being totalitarians, they are perfectly incapable of associating the one with the other, which is why they’re equally incapable of ever stopping.
So we strengthen up, organize up, prep up, and step up to face off with them, because the time for wishful thinking is long gone.
Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls. I am not saying COVID was the appropriate time to apply these regulations but I think it is hard to deny that there may be times where they may become necessary. If there was a disease which had something like a fatality rate of 50% and it spread easily are you going to want to maintain the status quo? Do we get to restrict the rights of individuals to travel freely? If I had this disease do I get to go to a public park? Basically just pointing out it is a difficult question to answer but not allowing the government any power to place regulations during an epidemic wouldn't be a workable option.
Of course the difficult thing is finding the right balance of when to put them in place and when to ease them off because of the nature of a pandemic a disease might seem very dangerous at first or it might seem minor at first and things change as we learn more.
The HRS has a section about regulations for quarantining individuals, a bit dry but as I recall interesting to see how the law spells out a process.
-
You are applying your own test of reasonableness when looking at the regulations on noisy gatherings, that's not how rights work. It doesn't matter whether you or I think it makes sense to have a 2am protest, the question is whether the government can restrict the protest in the interest of the community. If the 1st amendment was never trumped by the interested of the community then it would be impossible to ever prohibit a political or religious rally. The test here is that the regulation cannot be content based meaning that the city can deny a 2am rally because it is too noisy for the community, but they cannot deny the 2am rally based on the message of the rally.
Regarding the vaccine mandate question, the supreme court did hear a case on this, Zucht v. King
When I mentioned an epidemic the issue isn't just related to vaccine mandates either, it encompasses all sorts of issues including travel, detaining someone who is sick, requiring a mask to be worn, etc.
Stupid argument.
You can exercise your right to protest, but within the context of not creating a public nuisance or threat. Do you think these idiots protesting in the middle of the freeways have a right to do that just because protesting is protected speech? The government has every right to remove them where they are interfering with the free travel of others and putting themselves and drivers at risk of injury.
That doesn't meant they can't protest. They just need to find a manner that doesn't create a risk to safety or interfere with others' rights. What would happen if someone decided to run over a protester standing in the middle of the road and called it a counter-protest? Some places have passed laws protecting drivers if they accidentally hit a protestor who was standing in the roadway. In the end, people do get arrested for their choice of protest actions. While the right exists, it's not a free pass for disruption of others' lives or threat to others' safety.
"You are applying your own test of reasonableness ...".
So, are you saying i'm supposed to apply someone else's test of reasonableness? I'm not a mind reader like you, so mine is the only test i can apply in the absence of legal statutes and ordinances.
Or, you are saying I must apply your test of reasonableness and not that of the Supreme Court when interpreting the Second Amendment. I'm not saying the SCOTUS is perfect given the Liberal decisions they made for decades, but when it comes to the law, you are not allowed to substitute your opinion for theirs without there being consequences.
I guess narcissists have a problem accepting anyone else's opinions even if the opinion is the law of the land.
-
I never made an argument that people can exercise a collective right without the individual being able to exercise the right. I only showed that there are times where individuals have been denied collective rights even though they are not denied individual rights.
You can take up an argument of individual rights vs collective rights with legal scholars if you wish to tell them there isn't a difference.
Once again, you're just arguing to argue.
Your explanation is pure gobbledygook.
-
Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls. I am not saying COVID was the appropriate time to apply these regulations but I think it is hard to deny that there may be times where they may become necessary. If there was a disease which had something like a fatality rate of 50% and it spread easily are you going to want to maintain the status quo? Do we get to restrict the rights of individuals to travel freely? If I had this disease do I get to go to a public park? Basically just pointing out it is a difficult question to answer but not allowing the government any power to place regulations during an epidemic wouldn't be a workable option.
Of course the difficult thing is finding the right balance of when to put them in place and when to ease them off because of the nature of a pandemic a disease might seem very dangerous at first or it might seem minor at first and things change as we learn more.
The HRS has a section about regulations for quarantining individuals, a bit dry but as I recall interesting to see how the law spells out a process.
"Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls."
No need to pretend like there needs to be a "thought [sic] experiment". If the situation you propose existed, we already have contingency plans to contain the outbreak. It starts with declaring martial law. That alone gives the government the power necessary to put a pause on the Constitution in order to protect the nation from a threat to everyone's lives -- be it a hostile threat of violence or a natural one. Even a biological threat could originate as a hostile use of a bio weapon.
Don't try to reinvent the wheel. Do some research instead.
-
Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls. I am not saying COVID was the appropriate time to apply these regulations but I think it is hard to deny that there may be times where they may become necessary. If there was a disease which had something like a fatality rate of 50% and it spread easily are you going to want to maintain the status quo? Do we get to restrict the rights of individuals to travel freely? If I had this disease do I get to go to a public park? Basically just pointing out it is a difficult question to answer but not allowing the government any power to place regulations during an epidemic wouldn't be a workable option.
Of course the difficult thing is finding the right balance of when to put them in place and when to ease them off because of the nature of a pandemic a disease might seem very dangerous at first or it might seem minor at first and things change as we learn more.
The HRS has a section about regulations for quarantining individuals, a bit dry but as I recall interesting to see how the law spells out a process.
Kalihi Uka is going to learn this is how EEF replies. "thought experiment" aka wasting peoples time.
-
Kalihi Uka is going to learn this is how EEF replies. "thought experiment" aka wasting peoples time.
I don’t think Kalihi Uka is particularly bright in the first place anyway.
-
I don’t think Kalihi Uka is particularly bright in the first place anyway.
I had a feeling something was off. Now i'm thinking schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder.
But, don't fret over it. Some people have no personality at all! :crazy: :geekdanc: :rofl:
-
I had a feeling something was off. Now i'm thinking schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder.
But, don't fret over it. Some people have no personality at all! :crazy: :geekdanc: :rofl:
Roses are red,
violets are blue,
I’m a schizophrenic,
and so am I.
- Bill Murray’s favorite poem, and my other personal motto O0
-
Roses are red,
violets are blue,
I’m a schizophrenic,
and so am I.
- Bill Murray’s favorite poem, and my other personal motto O0
Schizophrenia: Robin Williams
https://youtu.be/SIHhD6mgBe0
(YT previews seem to have stopped working again on here)
-
Stupid argument.
You can exercise your right to protest, but within the context of not creating a public nuisance or threat. Do you think these idiots protesting in the middle of the freeways have a right to do that just because protesting is protected speech? The government has every right to remove them where they are interfering with the free travel of others and putting themselves and drivers at risk of injury.
That doesn't meant they can't protest. They just need to find a manner that doesn't create a risk to safety or interfere with others' rights. What would happen if someone decided to run over a protester standing in the middle of the road and called it a counter-protest? Some places have passed laws protecting drivers if they accidentally hit a protestor who was standing in the roadway. In the end, people do get arrested for their choice of protest actions. While the right exists, it's not a free pass for disruption of others' lives or threat to others' safety.
"You are applying your own test of reasonableness ...".
So, are you saying i'm supposed to apply someone else's test of reasonableness? I'm not a mind reader like you, so mine is the only test i can apply in the absence of legal statutes and ordinances.
Or, you are saying I must apply your test of reasonableness and not that of the Supreme Court when interpreting the Second Amendment. I'm not saying the SCOTUS is perfect given the Liberal decisions they made for decades, but when it comes to the law, you are not allowed to substitute your opinion for theirs without there being consequences.
I guess narcissists have a problem accepting anyone else's opinions even if the opinion is the law of the land.
You call my argument stupid but then you give another one illustrating the same concept. You are making the same argument about time, place, and manner restrictions I made.
:wacko:
When I said you were applying your own sense of reasonableness I was not talking about the reasonableness of the noise, you implied it was stupid to have a rally at 2am, that is the stupid argument I was attacking. Whether you think a rally at 2am is a good idea or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the government can restrict that rally. The government doesn't step in and say 2am rallies are stupid as a justification to regulate them. Hence my example of a 2am rally on a massive farm where no neighbors would be woken up in the middle of the night compared to a 2am rally in an urban area where lots of people would be woken up in the middle of the night.
-
Once again, you're just arguing to argue.
Your explanation is pure gobbledygook.
I gave you concrete real world examples and "gobbledygook" is the best rebuttal you can come up with?
Did I just stump you and you don't want to admit it or are you off your game today?
-
"Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls."
No need to pretend like there needs to be a "thought [sic] experiment". If the situation you propose existed, we already have contingency plans to contain the outbreak. It starts with declaring martial law. That alone gives the government the power necessary to put a pause on the Constitution in order to protect the nation from a threat to everyone's lives -- be it a hostile threat of violence or a natural one. Even a biological threat could originate as a hostile use of a bio weapon.
Don't try to reinvent the wheel. Do some research instead.
SWOOSH
You fail to understand the purpose of a thought experiment
Since you failed, I will explain it to you. The purpose was to illustrate to Kalihi that there could be times where he would recognize the need to give government this level of power. Just like with most strong firearm rights supporters even they have a line that they are willing to draw in terms of what arms can be had and who can have them. A thought experiment helps flush out where someone draws the line and helps evaluate that line.
Telling me to do research about actual government plans is a stupid and irrelevant whataboutism type argument.
-
SWOOSH
You fail to understand the purpose of a thought experiment
Since you failed, I will explain it to you. The purpose was to illustrate to Kalihi that there could be times where he would recognize the need to give government this level of power. Just like with most strong firearm rights supporters even they have a line that they are willing to draw in terms of what arms can be had and who can have them. A thought experiment helps flush out where someone draws the line and helps evaluate that line.
Telling me to do research about actual government plans is a stupid and irrelevant whataboutism type argument.
There’s no emergency clause to the constitution
Neither is there a restriction on the types of weapons one can own
We just allowed the government to get away with it too many times and now they take their unconstitutional powers for granted
-
There’s no emergency clause to the constitution
Neither is there a restriction on the types of weapons one can own
We just allowed the government to get away with it too many times and now they take their unconstitutional powers for granted
You are correct that the constitution doesn't mention anything about the types of weapons one can own, I don't dispute that but I think it is a jump to therefore conclude any attempt at regulating it is therefore unconstitutional.
I think I can list examples where even you would agree a certain person or certain weapon should not be allowed.
-
You call my argument stupid but then you give another one illustrating the same concept. You are making the same argument about time, place, and manner restrictions I made.
:wacko:
When I said you were applying your own sense of reasonableness I was not talking about the reasonableness of the noise, you implied it was stupid to have a rally at 2am, that is the stupid argument I was attacking. Whether you think a rally at 2am is a good idea or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the government can restrict that rally. The government doesn't step in and say 2am rallies are stupid as a justification to regulate them. Hence my example of a 2am rally on a massive farm where no neighbors would be woken up in the middle of the night compared to a 2am rally in an urban area where lots of people would be woken up in the middle of the night.
Wrong.
My example is no different than making it illegal to fire a gun inside a residential neighborhood or within city limits -- EXCEPT when done in self defense/defense of others. None of that is an arbitrary solve-no-real-problem law that makes me a felon because I happened to be carrying 12 inches beyond a gun free zone sign.
Why don't you quit ATTACKING ME AND MY ARGUMENTS (your word -- attack). Maybe try to actually understand what I'm saying first and them make your point. You attacking me and other members is why you get wrapped around the axle and can't stop attacking.
If your farm has neighbors who complain about the noise, you can bet they will call the sheriff. You make an assumption that a rally on some ambiguous farm is not going to bother anyone.
-
You are correct that the constitution doesn't mention anything about the types of weapons one can own, I don't dispute that but I think it is a jump to therefore conclude any attempt at regulating it is therefore unconstitutional.
I think I can list examples where even you would agree a certain person or certain weapon should not be allowed.
a dogpile of words
-
You are correct that the constitution doesn't mention anything about the types of weapons one can own, I don't dispute that but I think it is a jump to therefore conclude any attempt at regulating it is therefore unconstitutional.
I think I can list examples where even you would agree a certain person or certain weapon should not be allowed.
Anything arm an individual infantryman uses should be covered by the 2A as that's what would be used by the militia and people expected to own. To include machine guns, grenades, rpgs, etc in the modern day.
Crew served weapons and vehicles could be up for debate. Some people owned gatling guns, canons, and warships, but they weren't common and more of a organization possession.
-
Wrong.
My example is no different than making it illegal to fire a gun inside a residential neighborhood or within city limits -- EXCEPT when done in self defense/defense of others. None of that is an arbitrary solve-no-real-problem law that makes me a felon because I happened to be carrying 12 inches beyond a gun free zone sign.
Why don't you quit ATTACKING ME AND MY ARGUMENTS (your word -- attack). Maybe try to actually understand what I'm saying first and them make your point. You attacking me and other members is why you get wrapped around the axle and can't stop attacking.
If your farm has neighbors who complain about the noise, you can bet they will call the sheriff. You make an assumption that a rally on some ambiguous farm is not going to bother anyone.
How did I attack you? I always come at these discussions in a non-aggressive manner, they only turn muddy when you make them muddy. Disagree politely and we can have adult exchanges.
The whole point about the farm vs an urban area is to illustrate how time, place, and manner restrictions can limit constitutional rights in certain specific ways because of the interest of society.
-
Anything arm an individual infantryman uses should be covered by the 2A as that's what would be used by the militia and people expected to own. To include machine guns, grenades, rpgs, etc in the modern day.
Crew served weapons and vehicles could be up for debate. Some people owned gatling guns, canons, and warships, but they weren't common and more of a organization possession.
Since a line has to be drawn somewhere, realistically speaking, I would draw the line at automatic firearms and explosive devices.
-
Since a line has to be drawn somewhere, realistically speaking, I would draw the line at automatic firearms and explosive devices.
If the cops have it, then by definition it's safe enough for civil society and therefore civilians should be able to own and carry it.
-
If the cops have it, then by definition it's safe enough for civil society and therefore civilians should be able to own and carry it.
Common sense :thumbsup:
-
Since a line has to be drawn somewhere, realistically speaking, I would draw the line at automatic firearms and explosive devices.
So would you also be infavor of the following "automatic" firearms being illegal:
Bumpstocks
Auto Key Card
Forced reset triggers
Trigger cranks
-
If the cops have it, then by definition it's safe enough for civil society and therefore civilians should be able to own and carry it.
Larue Tactical has a saying "if it's not legal for your voters to own, we won't sell it to you" with regard to LEO's asking for stuff.
-
barrel wraps should be illegal
-
How did I attack you? I always come at these discussions in a non-aggressive manner, they only turn muddy when you make them muddy. Disagree politely and we can have adult exchanges.
The whole point about the farm vs an urban area is to illustrate how time, place, and manner restrictions can limit constitutional rights in certain specific ways because of the interest of society.
i used your word = 'attacking."
And I also said you were attacking me and my arguments, so don't try to wriggle away by arguing the different between attacking me vs attacking my argument.
You call my argument stupid but then you give another one illustrating the same concept. You are making the same argument about time, place, and manner restrictions I made.
:wacko:
When I said you were applying your own sense of reasonableness I was not talking about the reasonableness of the noise, you implied it was stupid to have a rally at 2am, that is the stupid argument I was attacking. Whether you think a rally at 2am is a good idea or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the government can restrict that rally. The government doesn't step in and say 2am rallies are stupid as a justification to regulate them. Hence my example of a 2am rally on a massive farm where no neighbors would be woken up in the middle of the night compared to a 2am rally in an urban area where lots of people would be woken up in the middle of the night.