Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Regulating the first amendment.

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Different, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. Different

    Different Land of the free, home of the brave. New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    3
    Make a deal gun owners and supporters let the 2nd amendment get further regulated however the anti gun folks do, but we get to regulate their first amendment rights.

    This way we could say you can't use more than ten words. You can't use words in a court of law. And you can't use words unless you've taken proper classes or taken a background check, you can't carry words concealed without a permit unless you're a designated person.

    Sounds kind of crazy to regulate rights now doesn't it?

    Your thoughts?
     
  2. Kevatc

    Kevatc Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    671
    Ho ho, ha ha, he he.

    OK ... let's get serious. Every Amendment is equally important. As a 2A supporting community it's important to argue on behalf of them all lest we be characterized as hyperbole spewing folks.
     
  3. PMKN_PI

    PMKN_PI Milwaukie, Oregon, United States Active Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ill put it this way...and Ive mentioned this in arguments with liberal vermin on Facebook. If my 2nd amendment rights ARE hampered to the point where they really do not exist anymore.........I WILL make sure that rights that THEY hold dear ARE attacked. Private property rights? Gone. I will take what I want from them. 1st amendment? I will do what i can to shut them up. They want to treat me like a criminal? I WILL be one if my rights are taken away. Punishment is due.
     
  4. Different

    Different Land of the free, home of the brave. New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree I've been having the debates recently. I have also seen my thoughts and beliefs become misconstrued as hyperbole. I didn't intend for this to be a joke as much as a different way of looking at it. As someone that at one time completely felt gun grabbing was a valid solution to many problems and then educated myself with facts rather than reactions.

    I do believe its important to educate people but there's a problem. The first amendment doesn't require educating people why should the second. These are rights not special licenses. Just like the right to say what you want.

    Long time friends and what I thought were open minded freedom loving people just don't get it. they immediately go right to "oh you're going to shoot it out with the government" no I have zero intention of shooting it out with anyone I don't want to shoot people at all. I just wish people understood their laws and their constitutional rights a little better. Ignorance is powerful and it scares the bubblegum out of me a lot more than a firearm in the possession of law abiding citizens.
     
  5. duldej

    duldej Portland Member

    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    12
    I see your point. liberal media and all of that. I think it would be more productive, however, to beef-up your own 1A rights than to spend your time trying to spoil it for everybody. Same goes for 2A rights. anti-gunners just seem to like to spoil things for the rest of us, and to shoot themselves in the foot, in the process.

    You could pick up a career in art for example, or journalism, and just like devote some of your energy into pro-2A propaganda, or get hired-on by a pro-2A organization. that way you could have both.

    The part that gets me is that they're mostly trying to legalize illicit substances and make illegal firearms. That doesn't gibe. Part of my argument for gun rights is that it's the idiot that uses the gun that can't do it right when innocent people get killed, but drugs are going to make you that idiot. Drugs make crimes happen. Also, why blame "guns" when one is saying, in the same breath, that drugs are harmless substances, or that the user harms only himself. A gun in a locked box, for example, is just as harmless.

    In general, I think that the moral panic about an innocent person getting killed here and there really amounts to statistics. Too often it is blown out of proportion. nuclear bombs should be illegal because they kill a multitude of people, and their dangerous effects affect many and the families of that many people. Fraud, as for instance with Enron, from a few years back affected many people in a very destructive way, and their families, too. One pistol with ten shots, on the other hand, even wielded improperly, is only going to do so much damage. The rest is just a moral panic.
     
  6. skud_dusty

    skud_dusty Salem, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    120
    Amend that with "learn to speak English" and I might be on board.
     
    Mrand55 and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Krompir

    Krompir Vancouver, WA New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sort of agree with looking into the 1A but from a different point of view. If you want to reduce the number of crazy people in this country you MUST look into US film industry and video gaming industry. The amount of violence and killing is way out of proportion and completely unacceptable and desensitize young minds.

    If they are to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights then they must also restrict 1A rights of film industry and video gaming industry by banning excessively violent movies and games.

    Whoever says that violent movies and games have no effect on human behavior is either an idiot or is hiding something… “Watching 2 hours of violence in a movie has no influence on our behavior.” BUT a 30 second Super Bowl ad is worth $3.8 Million because it will make us run out and buy a product.

    People are quick to buy a Playstation or Xbox game, which teaches kids to steal cars, decimate neighborhoods, and take over the world.

    It's time for US film and video game industry to stop hiding behind the 1A and then attack 2A. If FCC can ban the F word, surely they can do the same for extreme violence.
     
  8. PMKN_PI

    PMKN_PI Milwaukie, Oregon, United States Active Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    187
    really? this is your first post? Not off to a good start, pal. Censorship will spark civil war just as easily as gun grabbing. BUT>...if the liberals succeed in taking away my 2nd amendment right? I will do everything in my power to strip the rest of the rights they enjoy away. They want to live in a prison? We should give it to them.
     
  9. Krompir

    Krompir Vancouver, WA New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Fuzzbling

    Fuzzbling Lane County OR Member

    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    2
    I've never committed a violent crime, and yet I play these games on a regular basis, and have for many years. Movies, music included, yet I'm a law abiding citizen. How would you explain this?
     
  11. Krompir

    Krompir Vancouver, WA New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I too watch violent movies. But I know the boundaries.
    It only takes one rotten apple to spoil the rest.
     
  12. Kevatc

    Kevatc Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    671
    I have to admit that I've not thought of the issue quite like this. I think this argument certainly has its place with those who advocate for drug legalization on the one hand but for restricting a Constitutional right on the other. When asked in the terms you describe it would certainly be fun to watch them try to un-wind themselves from the knot they would tie themselves into. :thumbup:

    ETA: I can think of some folks in my life that would say a loaded gun sitting on a table is more dangerous than a syringe full of heroin on the same table. It would never occur to them that nobody will get shot or get high unless a person actually picks either item up and uses it.
     
    duldej and (deleted member) like this.
  13. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Number of casualties might be different though. That's one of the main anti points - guns make it possible to hurt a large number of people very efficiently, even in the hands of average persons.
     
  14. Different

    Different Land of the free, home of the brave. New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    3
    This may be true and is an excellent argument for control of high capacity magazines. Except one can steal 2 or 3 firearms just as easily as 1.

    The issue I have is I didn't do that not will I. Punishing the entire populace for the misdeeds of the misguided makes zero sense to me.

    why take away my constitutionally protected rights to make someone feel better. I feel better knowing responsible people have large capacities. I may not agree with them on everything. But historically the police and military are not here to protect us.

    Also a year ago 10 thousand people were marching through the streets of Portland. They claimed to be peaceful protesters. What if they hadn't been peaceful? A wheel gun will only carry you so long.
     
  15. DEADTIME

    DEADTIME Coeur D alene Active Member

    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    151
    The written and spoken word have accounted for more misdeeds and deaths than all but disease. Ideas create actions that can and have lead to millions of deaths. Would I support a ban on speech...nope I want people to tell me who they are so I know who to avoid and maybe even someday they will be held accountable for their actions/words publicly.

    That being said it would be great fun to strip liberals/progressives/marxists of rights as quickly as they seem to love to do it....like maybe a speech tax, I get 50% of the words you would have said...I mean you don't need those words anyway right?

    Most of this is of course said in jest but I do think that without a 2nd there will be no 1st.