Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Into the Night]

I was poking fun at your mistype ("natinos" instead of "nations")

Ah. I overran my keyboard again. Didn't notice it till now.

 

[Into the Night]

You've said this HOW many times now?? Yet, here you are...

Heh. He can't just walk away. He has to WIN. It's like a compulsion. He lies even to himself.

 

[Into the Night]

you're not understanding the point. the objection to making guns illegal is that generally law abiding people, the ones who you want to have guns who would use them for good defensive purposes, will not have them. only criminals with nefarious intent will have them.

That pretty well sums up the effect of gun control.

 

[Into the Night]

Then we need to modify that right. We have the right to free speech if we are willing to be punished for said speech. Not many people would consider that a right.

I have the freedom to steal (although it is not a right) if I am willing to be punished for said act.

That makes my right to free speech no different than my freedom to steal except in abstract terms. They are no different in practice.

No one has the right to free speech...anywhere.

You have the right to your opinion. That is an inherent right. You have the right to make that opinion known to another. That is an inherent right. Nothing was ever said that free speech is a right.

 

[Into the Night]

But the law it provides is very different than statutory law. The Constitution grants the government power to make laws and puts limits on those powers. There are not many actual "laws" in the Constitution. It tells government what it can and cannot do.

A government created by a constitution cannot pass any law in conflict with that constitution, at least legally.

The 1st Amendment prohibition against abridging free speech is not a law.

Yes it is. It is about time to bring it forth here, since you seem to no understand this particular law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note this law applies only to Congress. It applies only to the federal government. It does not apply to State and local governments.

Our laws regarding what speech can be punished come from our legislative bodies.

But not from the federal government. They have no power to pass such a law.

The Constitution does not specify threats, slander, fighting words, and obscenity may be restricted.

They can't, at least by the federal government. States can do what they want.

Legislative bodies passed laws restricting different types of speech

But not the federal government (legally).

and the courts interpreted the Constitution to tell us what speech can be restricted and what cannot.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution. See Article III of the Constitution. State courts have the authority given them under their State constitutions only as specified in those constitutions. A State court cannot modify it's own State constitution either. States do, however, may have the authority to regulate speech. See your State constitution. It differs from State to State.

Those were judicial interpretations not specifically contained in the amendment itself.

No court has the authority to interpret its own constitution. They may only interpret laws passed by their legislative bodies (or the initiative process in some States). The Supreme Court's authority is clearly described in Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere is it given the authority to change or interpret that Constitution.

For example, the FCC's list of so-called 'dirty words' law is unconstitutional. A State law concerning shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is up to the State constitution, not the federal one. The 1st amendment applies ONLY to the federal government.

Free speech is not an inherent right, and exists nowhere in the United States. See your local State constitution to determine what your State can or cannot do in this area.

 

[gfm7175]

And government cannot stop me from using cocaine, having an abortion, or molesting children.

Correct. Government cannot control you. Only YOU can control you.

But they can punish me for those acts

Correct. You cannot control government; you can only control yourself.

just as they can punish me for communicating an opinion to someone else (in a country without free speech protections).

Correct. You cannot control government; you can only control yourself.


Using cocaine (choosing to fuck up your body with drugs) is your right. I had a cousin who made that choice (using various drugs). Death (due to an overdose) was the consequence of her exercising her right. Operating while under the influence is not a right, however, for obvious reasons, same with abortion and child molestation. Other people's rights are being infringed upon in those cases...

 

[Into the Night]

And government cannot stop me from using cocaine, having an abortion, or molesting children. But they can punish me for those acts just as they can punish me for communicating an opinion to someone else (in a country without free speech protections).

Again, you are making the false equivalence. Just because you can do it does not make it an inherent right.

If you want to fuck yourself up on cocaine, that is your inherent right. Driving a car while on that stuff is not.
Abortions are taking the life of another. You do not have that as an inherent right. Inherent rights do not include taking the inherent rights from another.
Molesting is also not an inherent right for the same reason.

There is no such thing as free speech anywhere in the world. Again, you are confusing free speech with the inherent right to your own opinion and the inherent right to communicate that opinion to another.

The 1st amendment applies ONLY to Congress (the federal government).

 

[gfm7175]

Ah. I overran my keyboard again. Didn't notice it till now.

Them darn things just aren't fast enough sometimes...

 

[Into the Night]

The concept of rights under the Constitution means government cannot prohibit that action.

Rights do not come from the Constitution. It does not grant any rights, though it may discuss some of them.

Therefore, if I am punished for an action I did not have the constitutional right to do so.

Constitutions do not grant rights.

I may have had some vague "natural right" to do it, but only in some abstract sense that makes no difference in the reality.

It is quite real. There are real people exercising their rights, even in the most brutal of dictatorships.

 

[gfm7175]

Heh. He can't just walk away. He has to WIN. It's like a compulsion. He lies even to himself.

Yup, and his compulsion has become my personal enjoyment.

 

[Into the Night]

Them darn things just aren't fast enough sometimes...

Most keyboards today (including the one I'm using have partial N-key rollover, providing only 2-key rollover during a matrix conflict.
I type faster than that. Such lockouts will cause letters to go missing or even transpose, due to the 2-key rollover nature of the matrix keyboard design.

But they're five bucks. Can't beat the price.

Some, but not all, gaming keyboards have true N-key rollover, but they can cost up to $100 or more for such a keyboard.

 

[Into the Night]

Yup, and his compulsion has become my personal enjoyment.

I remember when you used to distance yourself from such people. Now you embrace harassing them as a hobby! My, how you've changed! Your own confidence has improved greatly!

 

[gfm7175]

I remember when you used to distance yourself from such people. Now you embrace harassing them as a hobby! My, how you've changed! Your own confidence has improved greatly!

hahaha I remember those days as well. I found those types of people to be annoying, essentially letting them get under my skin whether I realized it or not. Now, I find interacting with them to be quite entertaining. A confidence boost for sure!

 

[Flash]

They ARE different in practice, actually.

Voicing your opinion does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. It is a right inherent in mankind simply because they exist. Nobody except for you can control what you choose to say. Stealing, however, DOES infringe upon someone else's right to their property.

But I am still punished for both acts regardless of whether they infringe on the rights of someone else. That is why rights cannot exist in practice unless they are protected by government regardless of whether that right came from government or not. Without that protection I am being punished for expressing my opinion to another.

Most nations do not allow free speech so you might claim it is an inherent right that government cannot prohibit, I will be punished for expressing it. Some nations do protect that right so only in those nations is speech an actual right that I will not be punished for.

Not being punished for an action is what makes a right different than in those nations with that same right that I can be punished for.

 

[Flash]

A government created by a constitution cannot pass any law in conflict with that constitution, at least legally.

But there is nothing to prevent that illegal act giving Congress and the president power to abuse their powers. That makes the Constitution meaningless if any branch is unlimited in its actions.

Note this law applies only to Congress. It applies only to the federal government. It does not apply to State and local governments.

You are about 100 years behind in your constitutional law and seem completely unaware of the incorporation (nationalization process) which made most (not all) of the rights in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. Therefore, rights such as free speech restrict the states as well as the federal government. Excessive fines and bails was just incorporated in 2019.

 

[Flash]

Again, you are making the false equivalence. Just because you can do it does not make it an inherent right.

I can decide using cocaine is an inherent right as much as you can claim communicating my opinion to another is an inherent right. It is just an academic point of view with no applicability in the real world. It is what our political opinions allow the government to punish or not that matter.

 

[Flash]

Rights do not come from the Constitution. It does not grant any rights, though it may discuss some of them.

-Constitutions do not grant rights.

It is quite real. There are real people exercising their rights, even in the most brutal of dictatorships.

Then tell us what determines if something is an inherent (natural) right and what is not.

The Constitution determines what rights the government cannot prohibit. Originally, that prohibition only restricted the federal government but between 1925-2019 most of those prohibitions restrict the states as well.

 

[gfm7175]

But I am still punished for both acts regardless of whether they infringe on the rights of someone else.

Yes, and that is because you don't have the right to avoid the consequences of your actions. This point has been made numerous times now, yet you keep reverting back to the same old '...but I'm punished...' argument.

That is why rights cannot exist in practice

Yes, they can. Inherent rights exist whether government chooses to recognize them or not. You are exercising one of them right now. It is the right to express your opinion. Whether or not government chooses to recognize that right, you can express your opinion. Government cannot stop you from doing that. There might be consequences for expressing your opinion, but that does not mean that the right to do so doesn't exist. Only you can control yourself.

unless they are protected by government

Irrelevant. See above.

regardless of whether that right came from government or not.

Wrong. See above.

Without that protection I am being punished for expressing my opinion to another.

Yes, you might face consequences for putting your right into practice. That does not mean that your right does not exist.

You have the right to tell your wife that she is a naggy old bag who can't cook. You, however, do not have the right to avoid the various potential consequences of expressing that opinion to your wife, as she also has the right to express HER opinions.

Most nations do not allow free speech so you might claim it is an inherent right that government cannot prohibit, I will be punished for expressing it. Some nations do protect that right so only in those nations is speech an actual right that I will not be punished for.

Free speech is not a right. You do have the right to your opinion, however, as well as the right to express that opinion.

Not being punished for an action is what makes a right different than in those nations with that same right that I can be punished for.

Whether or not you might be punished for expressing a right does not change a right into a non-right. The right still exists regardless. Punishment is a potential consequence of expressing your inherent rights. You do not have the right to be free from consequences (such as punishment), but that does not mean that you do not have those inherent rights.

 

[Flash]

Free speech is not a right. You do have the right to your opinion, however, as well as the right to express that opinion.

A right to an opinion is irrelevant since nobody can know what my opinion is without my communicating it.

Free speech is a legal right in the U. S. because the federal and state governments are prohibited from abridging it although you do not seem aware of the incorporation process. The court system determines what type of speech can be restricted vs which cannot.

Whether speech is also an inherent right is irrelevant since most humans do not consider something a right if they will be punished for it and because we often classify or describe nations partly on the basis of their civil liberties.

According to you all nations have the inherent right of free speech which makes one no different than another. Those that allow us to express our opinions without punishment is what makes one better than another as far as civil liberties are concerned.

 

[StoneByStone]

you're not understanding the point. the objection to making guns illegal is that generally law abiding people, the ones who you want to have guns who would use them for good defensive purposes, will not have them. only criminals with nefarious intent will have them.

So basically, people will still have guns, but it will only be the people who decide to break the law.
Will the same thing happen with abortions?