Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[mozg]

The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough

Gonzales v. Castle Rock and an entire library of other decisions are very, very clear.

The police have absolutely no duty whatsoever to protect any individual citizen from crime. They are not even obligated to stop one they see happening.

The SCOTUS has very clearly defined self defense not only as the right of every citizen, but their responsibility as well.

[Coito ergo sum]

I said we should ban martial arts advertised as 'self defence' and we did actually ban an American instructor who was some what eager on the self defence front

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05 ... 02042.html

The point its not just about guns or other weapons its about gun owners and their attitudes that need to be dealt with

The totalitarian does seem to, as a general proposition, want to control people's "attitudes."

The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough

Except that nowhere do the police or army have the legal responsibility for protecting you. The police investigate crime, and make arrests. They aren't there to guard your house. If they see a crime in progress, they act to stop it, but since there are very few police compared to residents and other persons present in the country, the governments don't make any promises, and can't make any promises. It's not that they "may" fail, it's that they're not even trying to look after you or your house. They're more "on call" than anything else.

The attitude that if I can do/use something responsiblly then should be legal

I think this is an incomplete sentence. What are you saying here?

The attitude that a person behaviour can't be restricted due to the behaviour of others

Another difficult to understand statement. Once more, in English.

The attitude that law abiding citizens and 'bad' people are different

Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with someone who is minding their own business being able to defend herself if she is attacked unprovoked and unlawfully.

The attitude of anyone using the word 'tyranny', the use of that alone word should be enough to get anyone locked up

The attiitude that any person can be self reliant and self sufficient

None of this has anything to do with anything, other than your desire to ban anything you don't like, control people's "attitudes" and pretend that "the gub'mint" will take care of you. And, the notion that "well, it's up to the police, and if they don't get the job done, well, tough noogies to you -- you ought to lay down and die rather than defend yourself" is just, again, the expression of the wish to live as abject slave. That notion makes some people feel safe, because all responsibility is lifted. As long as he lives, the slave is fed and watered, and as long as he yessahs and nossahs at the right time, and works just hard enough not to get whipped, he'll live free of worry. Massah will protect him from other dangers.

[aspire1670]

I said we should ban martial arts advertised as 'self defence' and we did actually ban an American instructor who was some what eager on the self defence front

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05 ... 02042.html

The point its not just about guns or other weapons its about gun owners and their attitudes that need to be dealt with

The totalitarian does seem to, as a general proposition, want to control people's "attitudes."

Amen to that, brother. You nailed the NRA's agenda with that observation. Sacred cows really do make the tastiest hamburger.

[Coito ergo sum]

I said we should ban martial arts advertised as 'self defence' and we did actually ban an American instructor who was some what eager on the self defence front

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05 ... 02042.html

The point its not just about guns or other weapons its about gun owners and their attitudes that need to be dealt with

The totalitarian does seem to, as a general proposition, want to control people's "attitudes."

Amen to that, brother. You nailed the NRA's agenda with that observation. Sacred cows really do make the tastiest hamburger.

I nailed Mr. Jonno's agenda. He said exactly that. It amazes me how many supposedly liberal people are so authoritarian in their viewpoints.

Has the NRA? Maybe so. Do you have citation or a link where they advocate legally banning or restricting "attitudes?"

[Seth]

Americans sometimes seem to treat the Constitution as a holy scriptue. It is due respect, yes. It is one of the wonders of the world in my opinion. But it is still only a document arrived at by a few enlightened and generally privileged men. Men of their time too of course, with no idea of what the future might hold.

If a country can't change and adapt and if necessary rethink some basic foundations perhaps it deserves to stagnate and decline.

It can change and adapt. There is a very specific process for making changes to the Constitution. It requires that a Bill be passed by both houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority in each house that is then sent to the States, where three-fourths of the state's legislatures must ratify the Amendment. Alternatively, two-thirds of the State legislatures may convene a Constitutional Convention to create an Amendment which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the States.

It's intentionally difficult to amend the Constitution, and it requires a "supermajority" rather than a democratic simple majority.

As yet, nobody's even tried to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment. Obama and his ilk are trying to override the Constitution using extralegal methods like regulatory interference.

But the Supreme Court stands as the last bulwark against such tyranny before the People themselves have to rise up and rid themselves of a despot.

Thing is, you have to actually AMEND the Constitution to take away gun rights, you can't just take a phone poll and pass a new law like they can in the UK. We have much stronger protections for our civil rights than you do.

[Seth]

There is something to be said for not leaving basic individual liberties up to a majority vote. I know that a lot of folks these days think that as long as 51% of the population votes for something then it's good. But, IMO, that just ain't so. Without reigns on the vicissitudes of the masses, we will find the masses sell their future liberty for temporary safety, whenever there is a threat or frenzy is whipped up..

Again what is basic individual liberty, it works on the assumption that it exists, is natural and is beyond debate

Which happens to be the case.

In reality, the US system is a balance. It's basic concept is "checks and balances." Three coequal branches of government, delegated areas of authority which operate to "check and balance" the other two. Individual liberties to "check and balance" the power of the State. And, representative government and some added difficulty to amend the constitution to "check and balance" the caprice of the people themselves.

Which leads to entire weak and permanately deadlock government when you are in a multicultural society. It may work when basically 99% of people are of the same culture ,race and general occupation (farming).

Exactly! You've finally figured out why we created the system that way. It's precise purpose was to keep the central government small and relatively benign by strictly limiting its powers to act. Everything else is left to the state legislatures, or to the People themselves, on the principle that government is best when it is closest to those it governs because it can be more responsive and is more easily controlled.

The central government was never intended to be the monolithic bureaucracy that it is today. Not by half.

[Tero]

It can change and adapt. There is a very specific process for making changes to the Constitution. It requires that a Bill be passed by both houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority in each house that is then sent to the States, where three-fourths of the state's legislatures must ratify the Amendment. Alternatively, two-thirds of the State legislatures may convene a Constitutional Convention to create an Amendment which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Yes yes we know all that. The point of the thread is that we can restrict constitutional freedoms like free speech without changing amendments etc. Just pass laws that do not ban the rights but limit where and when you can use them. You can have a curfew where anyone under 21 can't be out after midnight. They can shoot and party at home all they like.

[Seth]

Pennsylvania's constitution begins with Article I Declaration of Rights.

Section 21 reads:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Do you find the term 'citizens' to be ambiguous?

"Shall not be questioned" is fascistic in essence, whatever holy writ it may refer to...

Read "We, the grumpy old men of the past, wish to enslave all future inhabitants of the fair state of Pennsylvania to our narrow views of the world. And no talking back..."

If the citizens of Pennsylvania want to change that, all they have to do is amend the state Constitution. But they haven't, have they? So what shall we conclude from this fact?

Perhaps that the citizens of Pennsylvania mean what they say and do not want their right to keep and bear arms questioned, by the legislature, the federal government, hoplophobes, you, or anyone else.

That is their right, after all.

[Seth]

It can change and adapt. There is a very specific process for making changes to the Constitution. It requires that a Bill be passed by both houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority in each house that is then sent to the States, where three-fourths of the state's legislatures must ratify the Amendment. Alternatively, two-thirds of the State legislatures may convene a Constitutional Convention to create an Amendment which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Yes yes we know all that. The point of the thread is that we can restrict constitutional freedoms like free speech without changing amendments etc. Just pass laws that do not ban the rights but limit where and when you can use them. You can have a curfew where anyone under 21 can't be out after midnight. They can shoot and party at home all they like.

No, you can't. The point of a constitutional freedom is that it cannot be restricted without meeting a very high burden, specifically a "compelling need" standard that regulates the exercise of the freedom in the "least intrusive manner" that "actually achieves a valid and legitimate government objective."

Your example of a curfew is wrong, the Supreme Court (and many state courts) have ruled that except for minors, who do not enjoy the full panoply of civil rights because they are minors, curfews are not permissible except during dire emergency situations, and any such restriction on the constitutional right to freedom of assembly (even in the middle of the night) must meet a strict scrutiny standard I illustrated above.

Firearms are heavily regulated as to how, when and where they may be OPERATED (ie: rounds being fired), which is appropriate and meets the strict scrutiny test. One obviously cannot discharge a weapon in a crowded place except under the most extreme of self-defense circumstances without breaking the law.

But mere possession and carrying ("keeping and bearing") of firearms poses no credible threat to anyone else, and therefore restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms must meet a strict scrutiny standard.

The government can legitimately closely regulate how you handle and discharge a firearm for valid reasons of public safety, but the government cannot merely claim that one's simple possession and carrying of arms in a peaceable and non-alarming fashion is unlawful because such a claim does not meet the strict scrutiny test that must be applied to all infringements on fundamental rights.

[Seth]

Not at all. I have zero problem with the concept that the right to self defense is inherent and unquestionable, and that it also indicates the right to own the means of effectively defending oneself

There should be no 'right' to self defence merely it is legal in a restricted number of circumstances.

But there is such a right, and always has been, in every culture on earth throughout history. It's a function of the natural behavior of all living creatures, who universally act to preserve their own individual lives. It's a genetic imperative in fact.

There is something seriously fucked with any individual that even thinks of self defence , sod banning guns I would ban any martial arts that advertises itself as 'self defence'. If they want to advertise as a sport or a way of keeping fair enough but if they in any way advertise is a way to hit people outside competitions or an arena is should be banned.

Sheesh. You really are afraid of everything, aren't you?

[Tero]

But mere possession and carrying ("keeping and bearing") of firearms poses no credible threat to anyone else, and therefore restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms must meet a strict scrutiny standard.

OK, prove to me that the idiot carrying a gun is not a bigger risk than the same idiot without a gun.

[Kristie]

Pennsylvania's constitution begins with Article I Declaration of Rights.

Section 21 reads:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Do you find the term 'citizens' to be ambiguous?

"Shall not be questioned" is fascistic in essence, whatever holy writ it may refer to...

Read "We, the grumpy old men of the past, wish to enslave all future inhabitants of the fair state of Pennsylvania to our narrow views of the world. And no talking back..."

If the citizens of Pennsylvania want to change that, all they have to do is amend the state Constitution. But they haven't, have they? So what shall we conclude from this fact?

Perhaps that the citizens of Pennsylvania mean what they say and do not want their right to keep and bear arms questioned, by the legislature, the federal government, hoplophobes, you, or anyone else.

That is their right, after all.

Or that they don't even know what their state constitution says. I don't know what mine says.

[MrJonno]

The totalitarian does seem to, as a general proposition, want to control people's "attitudes."

You don't control attitudes but democracy is about saying how or whether these attitudes can be put into practice.

Gun owner attitude he wants a gun for self defence, my attitude no one should be allowed to prepare for self defence whether its with a gun, knife or karate

[MrJonno]

There is something seriously fucked with any individual that even thinks of self defence , sod banning guns I would ban any martial arts that advertises itself as 'self defence'. If they want to advertise as a sport or a way of keeping fair enough but if they in any way advertise is a way to hit people outside competitions or an arena is should be banned.



Sheesh. You really are afraid of everything, aren't you?

Only people who go around prepared for self defence

[MrJonno]

The attitude that you are responsible for your defence, not the police or army. Sure they may fail you but life is tough

Gonzales v. Castle Rock and an entire library of other decisions are very, very clear.

The police have absolutely no duty whatsoever to protect any individual citizen from crime. They are not even obligated to stop one they see happening.

The SCOTUS has very clearly defined self defense not only as the right of every citizen, but their responsibility as well.

Will obviously if the holy courts says its true it must be then

It is the government responsibility to ensure you are not murdered, that doesnt mean they can't guarantee it won't happen but thats tough shit. The alternatives of everyone going around prepared for self defence is far worse