SoapBox: Owning guns is not a freedom

[Glassfan]

Christ we all need to take a chill pill and learn to speak to each other on this and other issues with more civility.

I suppose it depends on whose bull is being gored. Anytime someone starts a thread questioning someones else's rights, you can get a fairly negative response.

What do you believe in hobbsy? Let me denigrate it, drag it through the mud, and imply you're a morale degenerate for believing in it and just see how you react.

And I'm all for civil discourse, but haven't we done this one already - like about 16 times in the last month?

 

[Goodfella]

i sez: owning guns is not any more of a fundamental freedom humans should have than owning a sample of smallpox is.

This post is poorly written and insubstantial. I agree with other posts as well; this topic has been discussed to death. And are guns and smallpox two things that can be compared?

 

[caketastydelish]

Most people are vaccinated for smallpox anyway, so it doesn't even work.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

And are guns and smallpox two things that can be compared?

Maybe swap ox for ricks?

 

[Goodfella]

Most people are vaccinated for smallpox anyway, so it doesn't even work.

Not to diverge, but that's not entirely accurate.

From the CDC website:
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp

The last case of smallpox in the United States was in 1949. The last naturally occurring case in the world was in Somalia in 1977. After the disease was eliminated from the world, routine vaccination against smallpox among the general public was stopped because it was no longer necessary for prevention. (added Nov 13, 2002)

Maybe swap ox for ricks?

In that case, the OT is definitely on to something...

 

[Colonel]

I'd like to pose a question, if you happen to be pro-gun control (specifically to Americans). If it's ok to limit or outlaw my right to own a firearm, is it ok for me to limit or outlaw your preference of religion? Just out of curiosity, as both are guaranteed by the same document.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'd like to pose a question, if you happen to be pro-gun control (specifically to Americans). If it's ok to limit or outlaw my right to own a firearm, is it ok for me to limit or outlaw your preference of religion? Just out of curiosity, as both are guaranteed by the same document.

As long as you don't commit violent acts or otherwise break the law, you are entitled to whatever religious beliefs you want. (I'm an American who is pro gun)

 

[ace99]

I'd like to pose a question, if you happen to be pro-gun control (specifically to Americans). If it's ok to limit or outlaw my right to own a firearm, is it ok for me to limit or outlaw your preference of religion? Just out of curiosity, as both are guaranteed by the same document.

Everything in the Constitution can be limited. Freedom of speech when it's obscenity, pornography, true threats, slander/libel/defamation, time, place and manner restrictions, fighting words to just name some of the ways speech can be limited.

Religion can similarly be limited in schools under the Lemon test, religious practices can be restricted such as polygamy, human and animal sacrifice and drug usage.

And yes, while an individual right to own firearms do exist according to this Supreme Court, (the only Supreme Court to say so btw), it can also be subject to restrictions such as background checks and so forth though that's still a little vague since the Court has declined to give any clear standards on that yet about whats a reasonable restriction and whats not. So we'll have to pass some restrictions and see what the Court thinks.

I know people like to have a popular conception that they have an absolute right to all sorts of thing, but that's not the reality and courts and legal precedent don't bear it out.

 

[Colonel]

As long as you don't commit violent acts or otherwise break the law, you are entitled to whatever religious beliefs you want. (I'm an American who is pro gun)

I specifically meant without a constitutional amendment is it ok to limit someone's religious freedom in the same manner the "Gun-Control" folks would like to limit my rights to a gun without a constitutional amendment.

I seem to remember this whole this supposed to work. If the will of the American people is to outlaw firearms or significantly curtail their availability, then one must pass a constitutional amendment. As what was done to repeal the Prohibition amendment. Same principle to get rid of my gun rights you must pass another amendment banning them or changing the wording of the 2nd amendment.

Ace- I pose a question to you then, is it legal to outlaw say all assault weapons or all pistols? If so is ok for me to outlaw Catholicism or Islam? The same principle applies.

 

[caketastydelish]

I specifically meant without a constitutional amendment is it ok to limit someone's religious freedom in the same manner the "Gun-Control" folks would like to limit my rights to a gun without a constitutional amendment.

I seem to remember this whole this supposed to work. If the will of the American people is to outlaw firearms or significantly curtail their availability, then one must pass a constitutional amendment. As what was done to repeal the Prohibition amendment. Same principle to get rid of my gun rights you must pass another amendment banning them or changing the wording of the 2nd amendment.

In practice you are right, but to my understanding (I may be wrong) there already are limitations on guns, which are technically unconstitutional. For example, if someone has a criminal record or even a mental illness, they may not be able to legally obtain a gun. This should be a contradiction of the second amendment, yet it is already in effect. By making even more limitations on guns, it is simply more of this. That said, if did make an amendment to the constitution that reversed the second amendment, then it would actually be legal in my eyes. That said, it would make the country worse.

Ace- I pose a question to you then, is it legal to outlaw say all assault weapons or all pistols? If so is ok for me to outlaw Catholicism or Islam? The same principle applies.

Both would be unconstitutional without amendments, because the former contradicts the second amendment, the latter contradicts the first. The government is much more free with the first amendment though than the second. For example, even Westboro Baptist church are entitled to their opinions without persecutions. There was some case of prejudice people in Tennessee (I think) trying to prevent the construction of a Mosque, but that was declared unconstitutional (as it should be).

Only by making another amendment to contradict the first amendment would that have been legal. Thus, they should only be able to limit guns by making an amendment.

 

[emzie]

I specifically meant without a constitutional amendment is it ok to limit someone's religious freedom in the same manner the "Gun-Control" folks would like to limit my rights to a gun without a constitutional amendment.

I seem to remember this whole this supposed to work. If the will of the American people is to outlaw firearms or significantly curtail their availability, then one must pass a constitutional amendment. As what was done to repeal the Prohibition amendment. Same principle to get rid of my gun rights you must pass another amendment banning them or changing the wording of the 2nd amendment.

Ace- I pose a question to you then, is it legal to outlaw say all assault weapons or all pistols? If so is ok for me to outlaw Catholicism or Islam? The same principle applies.

You don't have the right to impose your religion on another, even if that's what your religion says you should do. You don't have the right to sacrifice babies, even if that's what your religion says you should do. There's limits to everything in the Constitution, including limiting the types of weapons you can own.

 

[ace99]

Ace- I pose a question to you then, is it legal to outlaw say all assault weapons or all pistols? If so is ok for me to outlaw Catholicism or Islam? The same principle applies.

(1) Possibly, we're not sure yet because the Court has declined to say.

(2) Nope. And the same principle probably doesn't apply since one has precedent and case law backing it, and the other doesn't. The Court will likely create a principle within the next few years. McDonald v. Chicago left plenty of questions.

 

[aelf]

What do you believe in hobbsy? Let me denigrate it, drag it through the mud, and imply you're a morale degenerate for believing in it and just see how you react.

Not by threatening to shoot people? You must be a pretty disturbed individual to think that that's a reasonable response. I suppose you'd also have to agree with the reaction extremist Muslims have towards any insult to their religion.

 

[Crezth]

If you value your life, then you should own a gun. If you don't love yourself, then by all means, don't own a gun. Although I should mention I technically don't own a gun because my gf doesn't like guns.

Haha so you don't love yourself.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The chance of someone breaking into your home is very high where I live. And this is the case in most cities. Only out in the rural farmlands does that chance approach zero.

Why do you need a gun when most burglaries occur when the occupants aren't there? So they can steal it and sell it someone for use in a violent crime?

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Haha so you don't love yourself.

You've no sense of romance. He loves his girlfriend more than he loves his own life.

 

[Gatsby]

Securing a person's right/privelidge/whatever to own guns is relatively easy. But what about a person's right to not get shot?

 

[Colonel]

Securing a person's right/privelidge/whatever to own guns is relatively easy. But what about a person's right to not get shot?

Need I give the classic quote from Franklin on Security vs. Liberty? I would much rather know my rights are secure even if it means theres a chance I could be shot at. Plus I'll shoot back.

 

[Crezth]

Need I give the classic quote from Franklin on Security vs. Liberty? I would much rather know my rights are secure even if it means theres a chance I could be shot at. Plus I'll shoot back.

Don't you opt to give up a little liberty for a little security intrinsically every day? You permit the government to take your money to protect you from foreign countries.

 

[Goodfella]

If it's ok to limit or outlaw my right to own a firearm, is it ok for me to limit or outlaw your preference of religion? Just out of curiosity, as both are guaranteed by the same document.

Unless you believe we have the right to own artillery or fighter jets then you already agree that it's ok to limit the right to bear arms in some circumstances.

As the others have pointed out, your right to religion can be limited as well...I mean UBL's religious beliefs mandated that he kill people.