question about "the left wing"

[dalebert]

The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect unpopular/controversial speech. "Hate speech" is just way too vague of a thing to ban and it terrifies me to think who gets to decide what speech qualifies. Making exceptions, especially vague ones, is basically just revoking the 1st amendment because then there is some government organization that gets to decide what qualifies as "hate speech" which means the government is right back to deciding what speech is allowed or not.

[amZo]

The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect unpopular/controversial speech. "Hate speech" is just way too vague of a thing to ban and it terrifies me to think who gets to decide what speech qualifies. Making exceptions, especially vague ones, is basically just revoking the 1st amendment because then there is some government organization that gets to decide what qualifies as "hate speech" which means the government is right back to deciding what speech is allowed or not.

Right on, right on!

Plus, hasn't everyone learned... "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

Too many in government (largely dems) find free speech and the right to bear arms meaningless, essentially tolerable only when they decide when and where you'll exercise these 'unassailable' rights, but they're mandating unaffordable worthless 'health insurance'. This current crop is a bunch of absolute fools.

[dalebert]

A friend emailed to explain why he can't afford to visit as planned. It's multiple factors but this was an interesting excerpt.

"...when the Affordability Care Act came into effect during the beginning of the year my health insurance rate (I was getting insurance through my employer) soared and I had to cancel my plan." (emphasis mine)

Oh, the irony. Whatever politicians call something usually has little relation to what it actually does. Notice I said "politicians" and didn't specify a party. I don't see much difference between the parties in that respect.

I understand people need health care. I want everyone to get it. Providing resources that people need has been an ongoing problem that the human race has been working at solving throughout history. We've gotten better at it, certainly, though mostly through technological advancement and the broadening of our scientific knowledge.

The belief that the government can somehow provide resources just by passing laws boggles my mind. That just seems like a fantasy world that I would love to live in as much as I'd love to live in a world where D&D spells existed (okay, maybe not. That could be pretty scary!) It's like believing the government can feed people by passing a law that food must appear on people's tables every night.

[MadeleineG]

The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect unpopular/controversial speech. "Hate speech" is just way too vague of a thing to ban and it terrifies me to think who gets to decide what speech qualifies. Making exceptions, especially vague ones, is basically just revoking the 1st amendment because then there is some government organization that gets to decide what qualifies as "hate speech" which means the government is right back to deciding what speech is allowed or not.

Hate speech regulation need not be vague. I would argue that declarations of hatred constitute "fighting words" (albeit indirect) and, as such, should not be protected.

Tolerate hateful speech? Don't complain when the fascists mobilize.

[amZo]

I don't tolerate hate speech.

I just know these laws won't be applied fairly. Just look at Obama's executive orders and HHS's rules on obamacare, they're applying this law differently for their constituents (unions, etc.) AND TO THEMSELVES! I believe only a free people can prevent fascism. The day you put it in the hands of a few partisans, pack your bags and prepare to flee.

Ironic that controlling speech and restricting arms of the people is the first thing tyrants do AND just happen to be amendments ONE and TWO of our constitution.

[Shantel]

Chicago grass roots reaction to the State of the Union.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/30/wow-poor-black-men-chicago-respond-obamas-state-union-address

[amZo]

Chicago grass roots reaction to the State of the Union.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/01/30/wow-poor-black-men-chicago-respond-obamas-state-union-address

WOW is right.

I'd say they summarized the current state of our country and its ills about as well as one can.

_________________

Things are about to get much worse... this year...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuA2_P-m4Sk&feature=player_embedded

[HenryHall]

It is not a left-wing / right-wing issue.

There is an organization called Democrats for the Second Amendment.

And Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was in favor of arming the peasants with rifles. You don't get much more left-wing than Lenin, now do you?

[Shantel]

It is not a left-wing / right-wing issue.

There is an organization called Democrats for the Second Amendment.

And Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was in favor of arming the peasants with rifles. You don't get much more left-wing than Lenin, now do you?

Peasants is the key word, my money is on the probability that they were not very literate folks and knew little of Lenin's agenda and became easily persuaded followers with the promise of a redistribution of wealth. In the SE Asia the Viet Cong forces were composed primarily of peasants who had no idea of the difference between Communism or Democracy but were promised a redistribution of land and wealth, peasants are always useful tools just like low information voters are.

[kariann330]

If i may suggest a thought, a person once said that "the second amendment does not apply to citizens, only those in a state malitia so you should not be able to own any guns....period". Well my question is what is there to say that a person isn't part of a state malitia? Look at Ohio laws for example, "Any able bodied resident of the state of Ohio is considered part of the states malitia". Im able bodied, of sound mind (legally speaking), and a resident of the state. Should i still be covered by the Second Amendment?

Also just for fun......"Preacher lady is all no alcohol, Obama is all no guns, while im over here drunk as hell shootin sh*t" Earl Dibbles JR.

[Jamie D]

St George Tucker, writing in Blackstone's Commentaries, 1803, noted that in the United Stated there were no conditions placed on gun ownership:  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...".

William Rawle (1825), a noted early American legal scholar, restated the original intent and understanding of the 2nd Amendment:

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

The US Supreme Court agreed with this in the 2007 Heller case, Justice Scalia writing for the Court:

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.

[kariann330]

St George Tucker, writing in Blackstone's Commentaries, 1803, noted that in the United Stated there were no conditions placed on gun ownership:  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...".

William Rawle (1825), a noted early American legal scholar, restated the original intent and understanding of the 2nd Amendment:

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

The US Supreme Court agreed with this in the 2007 Heller case, Justice Scalia writing for the Court:

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.

That being said i gotta ask...how the hell are the laws of California, New York, NJ and Cook County still constitutional?

[Jamie D]

It is not a left-wing / right-wing issue.

There is an organization called Democrats for the Second Amendment.

And Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was in favor of arming the peasants with rifles. You don't get much more left-wing than Lenin, now do you?

In the nascent Soviet Union, weapons were seized as early as March 1918, in areas controlled by the Reds.

http://guner.ru/razre->-bleeped-<-elnaya-sistema-v-rossii/

"Petrograd Extraordinary Commission March 21, 1918 published an announcement on the Prohibition of individuals without proper authorization of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies to store weapons, ammunition and explosives. Within three days from the date of publication of this announcement, all individuals were required to obtain permission to store their weapons or hand it over to regional councils and government agencies, after the statutory three-day period the person did not comply with these requirements were seen as raiders and brought to justice Revolutionary Tribunal."

[Jamie D]

That being said i gotta ask...how the hell are the laws of California, New York, NJ and Cook County still constitutional?

Short answer, in my opinion, they are not, and I do not comply with them.

Scalia was quoting approvingly from an earlier Georgia Supreme Court decision.  Scalia explained:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people"

[amZo]

In the nascent Soviet Union, weapons were seized as early as March 1918, in areas controlled by the Reds.

http://guner.ru/razre->-bleeped-<-elnaya-sistema-v-rossii/

"Petrograd Extraordinary Commission March 21, 1918 published an announcement on the Prohibition of individuals without proper authorization of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies to store weapons, ammunition and explosives. Within three days from the date of publication of this announcement, all individuals were required to obtain permission to store their weapons or hand it over to regional councils and government agencies, after the statutory three-day period the person did not comply with these requirements were seen as raiders and brought to justice Revolutionary Tribunal."

My goodness, then it must have been a super duper safe place to live between 1918 and 1991!   

[Jamie D]

My goodness, then it must have been a super duper safe place to live between 1918 and 1991!   

"Arming the peasants" was solely for the purpose of overthrowing the existing imperial government, and their European allies, during the Bolshevik revolution.  After that, an armed populace became dangerous.

American and Canadian troops were very active in eastern Siberia from 1918 to 1919.  The last Americans evacuated Vladivostok in April 1920.

[Shantel]

My goodness, then it must have been a super duper safe place to live between 1918 and 1991!   

[Androgynous_Machine]

Political BS aside.

I'd much rather keep my weapons.  Never know when some lunatic is going to try to hurt me for being trans and I'm not willing to wait minutes for the police when seconds count.

In my point of view, all gun control does is give a monopoly on the vessels of violence to the criminal and political class.

No thanks.

-AM

[kariann330]

Political BS aside.

I'd much rather keep my weapons.  Never know when some lunatic is going to try to hurt me for being trans and I'm not willing to wait minutes for the police when seconds count.

In my point of view, all gun control does is give a monopoly on the vessels of violence to the criminal and political class.

No thanks.

-AM

I have pelican cases for all of my guns....let some politician, like Finstein, get a bill passed confiscating firearms....ill bury ALL of mine and only unearth them after the police leave. If they ask about the fresh dirt  my dog died last night.

[Androgynous_Machine]

I have pelican cases for all of my guns....let some politician, like Finstein, get a bill passed confiscating firearms....ill bury ALL of mine and only unearth them after the police leave. If they ask about the fresh dirt  my dog died last night.

The rate transwomen are raped, sexually assaulted, beaten, and murdered I'm a firm believer that a 9mm Glock or Beretta should be prescribed alongside HRT.  What's real fun? On of the largest groups of perpetrators of these crimes against transwomen are the police themselves.

Knowing that and some people think I should fork over my guns to make some dopey liberal happy.  No thanks.

-AM