Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Strict scrutiny (Score 1) 935

No, your point was that the state can impose limits on the Second Amendment:

But only insofar as it has imposed limits on the 1st amendment (such as imminent inciting of violence). Gun registration, limits on magazine capacity, prohibition of concealed carry, don't have any analog to the limits we've accepted on the 1st amendment - and therefore it should be obvious they wouldn't pass strict scrutiny.

Go back to the start of the thread - dywolf said our rights had limits, and gave examples of 1st amendment restrictions. My challenge to him was to show that his preferred restrictions of the 2nd amendment had 1st amendment counterparts. I asserted there already *were* similar restrictions, and none of them had to do with any gun control legislation ever proposed.

Comment Re:Strict scrutiny (Score 1) 935

The possibility that people might intend to incite an imminent violation of the law is not a justification to impose prior restrictions on speech.

Pay close attention here - they're asserting that imposing prior restrictions is *not* allowed.

Given that is true with the 1st amendment, why do you think prior restrictions should be allowed for the 2nd amendment?

You cannot, however, use that reasoning to implement any prior restrictions on gun ownership or the bearing of arms.

*Exactly* my point. If we are going to treat the 2nd amendment as an equal to the 1st amendment, prior restrictions on ownership or the bearing of arms, like say, limiting magazine capacity, prohibiting ownership, prohibiting concealed carry, etc, etc, can't possibly be seen as meeting the tests of strict scrutiny.

Perhaps we are more in agreement in disagreement.

Comment Re:Arm the first responders... (Score 1) 935

Soldiers definitely train for combat. SWAT definitely trains for combat. Your average police officer fires there weapon only a few times a year for qualification. That's the sad truth.

I'd actually argue that the armed civilian is *safer* because they have to be aware of their own personal liability, whereas a cop might just decide to unload his magazine because he knew lawyers were there to back him up in the case of friendly fire. So, the civilian might not save as many lives as the cop (since the cop can take the shot at the terrorist without much regard for friendly fire), but the civilian is much less likely to end up with friendly fire (since the civilian knows they'll be held accountable for every piece of lead out of the gun).

You're absolutely right, a massed attack during reloads can make the difference (france and their train, giffords shooting, etc), but that's incredibly lucky and rare.

We should have *less* guns out there for bad guys (so, let's actually have a background check system that works, a deportation system that works, and a mental health system that works), and *more* guns out there for good guys - even just *slightly* more changes the calculus for criminals and terrorists.

Put another way, we should be working towards *more* responsible gun owners, not fewer.

Comment Re:Strict scrutiny (Score 1) 935

I did read what you wrote. You're simply mistaken on the facts.

You claimed the 1919 SCOTUS ruling was "overturned" in 1969, without clearly understanding the case history.

The 1969 case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation."

"The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,[2] and articulated a new test — the "imminent lawless action" test — for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:"

This "imminent lawless action" test replaced the "clear and present danger" test.

https://popehat.com/2012/09/19...

Now, maybe you think the case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was literally about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre - it was not. That happens to be the tortured analogy Holmes applied in his opinion, but that's *not* what the case was about.

It is, today, an illegal use of the "freedom of speech" to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre to cause "imminent lawless action" (a stampede).

So, if you're willing to restrict the 1st amendment for inciting "imminent lawless action", we can apply the same restriction to the right to bear arms - you can't bear arms in such a way that would incite "imminent lawless action" (let's say, waving a rifle and pointing threateningly at a crowd in a theatre).

Comment Re:Mechanical reliability (Score 1) 935

It's 2am. You hear the back door being bashed down. You grab your infant, open your gun safe, and grab your gun, taking a defensive position in your bedroom. In one hand you call 911, in the other you keep a good eye on the door with your weapon.

Two thugs come into the bedroom before the 911 call is finished. You drop the phone, place both hands on the weapon, clearly identify your targets are *not* your family, and squeeze the trigger.

Click.

"refuse to fire" fail case is now the reason for the deaths of a mother and her infant child. All the cops find when they finally get there is two dead bodies.

Comment Re:Safety is about training (Score 1) 935

I'll assert that the vast majority of gun guys and girls aren't idiots. Yes, you're going to get some crazy in any population, but the caricature of anyone with a gun being some bruce willis cowboy wannabe is just that - a caricature.

In the gun store I go to, they simply don't sell to idiots - I've seem them kick people out of the store and refuse to sell to them because they were playing up some angry, macho bullshit. Now, perhaps you've been hanging out with lots of idiots with guns, and in that case, I highly suggest you choose better company.

Comment Re:Arm the first responders... (Score 1) 935

Given the kinds of cop shootings I've seen in the news, and the lax range training requirements for requalification they have, I'm more inclined to trust my fellow armed civilian. Gun culture is about training, and every CCW holder I've ever encountered has been serious, dedicated, and conscientious. Now, yes, you may have the rare negligent weapons wielder, but that's *not* even a small minority - it's an infinitesimal one.

Now, perhaps you just don't know that many gun folk, or perhaps you've known some really irresponsible gun folk, but in a SHTF situation, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Whether or not that good guy takes a government paycheck means little to me.

Comment Re:Strict scrutiny (Score 1) 935

So the "speaking" of "fire!" is perfectly legal; it's the creating a stampede in a crowded theatre that is illegal :) Of course the "creating a stampede" part is illegal whether you speak, or bash cymbals together, or start waving a sword around :)

In 1969 the Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. That sounds like "fire!" in a crowded theatre to me.

The fact of the matter is this - self defense is just as inalienable as speech, religion, or assembly. You can pretend that's not so, but it doesn't change it.

Comment Re:Strict scrutiny (Score 1) 935

Think about it for a moment - when is it appropriate to bear arms?

In self defense - check.

Hunting - check.

Target shooting - check.

Murdering someone - nope - we restrict your right to bear arms towards that end

Kidnapping someone - nope - we restrict your right to bear arms towards that end

Similarly, we don't allow people to speak when yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

The trick is, we restrict behavior narrowly (in the case of "fire!" in a theatre, you're preventing a mass stampede and injuries, death and mayhem).

An analogous restriction for the right to bear arms is to limit it when you are not behaving appropriately.

Slashdot Top Deals

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard

Working...