Saturday, January 26, 2013

Second Amendment Isn't Under Attack, Everything Else Is

by Jeff Simpson

 As Bill Maher Points out....It is not your Second Amendment rights you have to worry about, it is ALL OF THE OTHERS!







20 comments:

  1. The right to bear arms is the easiest of the constitutional rights to have taken away from a citizen.

    Get convicted of any felony...even non-violent ones? You automatically lose that right, for life.

    Get convicted of some misdemeanors? You automatically lose that right, for life.

    And you don't even have to be convicted of a crime: Have a medical marijuana card? You automatically lose that right, for as long as you have a card.


    Granted, folks (some on this blog) are pushing to remove 1st amendment rights from folks convicted of political crimes...but that ain't actually law yet. I can't think of any other basic right, protected by the Constitution, that is so easy to have taken away from someone.

    Of course, I may be missing something. If someone can actually provide some examples of other basic rights that can be stripped from a citizen in such a broad manner (ie: Do all felons automatically lose the right to go to church? Do all medical marijuana patients automatically lose the right to blog online?) I'd appreciate it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WHOOOOAAA slow down PP.

      We have had our 2nd amendment debate earlier so no need to rehash that, BUT how is being banned from working in the political arena, AFTER you have been found guilty of breaking the law and the public trust, not once but twice, any infringement at all upon anyone's 1st amendment rights???

      Delete
    2. You keep droning on and on about this without making any kind of salient point. Is it your contention then that felons shouldn't lose their right to bear arms? Those convicted of domestic abuse and violent misdemeanors should be able to possess firearms?

      You keep saying "The right to bear arms is the easiest of the constitutional rights to have taken away from a citizen.", yet you don't show any quantitative support for that statement. You give examples of loss of the right to own firearms as punishment for criminal conviction, but fail to mention those same people often lose the right to vote as well. In some states, for life. As a condition of their conviction they can be barred from entrance to certain places, prevented from having contact with victims, or even coming within a certain distance of people or places. Sometimes, they even lose their ability to be free entirely (this can even happen for the duration of their natural life). This is part of the punishment, and is meant as both a safety feature for society, as well as a deterrent.

      There are plenty of examples of other rights being lost. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 15th, and 24th amendments have all had abridgments to varying degrees. Take a stroll into the Capitol building in Madison and watch how easy it is to have your first amendment rights stripped from you if you try to hold up a sign or sing a song. All rights can be stripped from citizens. This idea that it's so easy to remove gun rights completely ignores how incredibly difficult it is to pass the most benign regulatory legislation. I mean, it's not as if the gun industry has a massive, incredibly well funded lobbying group doing their every bidding or anything. Add to that, even mentioning regulation sends every Chicken Little gun nut screaming about "the government coming for their guns", and acting like irrational, petulant children. No, in reality, gun rights are incredibly difficult to take away. That's probably why we have 300 million plus guns in the U.S., one of the highest firearm related death rates in the industrialized world, and lead the industrialized world in mass shootings. Every year, 30,000 plus are killed by firearms (more than 80 a day), 100,000 are killed or injured. Firearm deaths are on track to become the leading non-medical killer in the U.S. (replacing auto fatalities) by 2015. The best we can come up with to counter this is more guns, and armed guards in schools. Yeah, sounds like holding on to gun rights has been a huge problem.

      Did you bitch and moan this much when the Patriot Act was signed into law? When indefinite detention was codified into law? When the 4th thru 6th amendments got slowly eroded in case after case? Did you go onto blogs with your silly false equivalencies and ridiculous non sequiturs when voters were being disenfranchised and peaceful protestors assaulted by law enforcement? You want examples, real examples of rights being stripped from citizens? They're all around you. You can stop with your absolutely irrelevant, and completely asinine examples like felons losing the right to go to church. You can't possibly be that daft as to not see the logical fallacy of your suggestions.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. "how is being banned from working in the political arena, AFTER you have been found guilty of breaking the law and the public trust, not once but twice, any infringement at all upon anyone's 1st amendment rights?"

      Because I beleive that taking away any basic right for life, even after a sentence is completed, is an infringement of those rights.

      If you really think he shouldn't be allowed to exercise his free speech (or vote, or possess a firearm, or whatever other rights you may have in mind) for the rest of his life, then keep him locked up for the rest of his life. But once someone has completed their sentence, then they should be a free person.

      Delete
    5. "Take a stroll into the Capitol building in Madison and watch how easy it is to have your first amendment rights stripped from you if you try to hold up a sign or sing a song."

      I've sang (poorly!) with the Solidarity Singers a couple times already, but thanks for the invite.

      However, my awareness of the attacks on free speech came around long before the protests over Act 10. Not to name-drop, but I stood alongside Ben Masel when a group of us hosted the Free Speech Stage at the National Mayor's Conference in Madison. Risking arrest, we invited anyone who had something to say to come up and say it.

      I did end up getting arrested at a different event (along with Masel and about a dozen other people) for expressing our First Amendment rights, and was part of the class-action lawsuit (which we won) against Sauk County for that situation.

      I ain't trying to turn this into a pissing contest, but rather asking you to stop with the implications that I'm ignorant of the attacks on the First Amendment...'cause I've served my time on the front lines fighting for those rights.

      "Did you bitch and moan this much when the Patriot Act was signed into law? When indefinite detention was codified into law? When the 4th thru 6th amendments got slowly eroded in case after case? Did you go onto blogs...."

      *sigh*

      Yes, I did. I made much fuss when Bush signed 'em into law, I expressed pride that Senator Feingold stood against it, and I continued to bitch about it when Obama expanded it.

      Seriously dude...your bigoted outlook is clouding our discussion. As it was pointed out before, you're simply too emotional about this issue to discuss it rationally & I truly can't see a way to overcome your prejudice attitude.

      Delete
    6. "but rather asking you to stop with the implications that I'm ignorant of the attacks on the First Amendment...'cause I've served my time on the front lines fighting for those rights."

      Fantastic, but then why ask this?: "Of course, I may be missing something. If someone can actually provide some examples of other basic rights that can be stripped from a citizen in such a broad manner"

      So, ostensibly you're aware of the examples, you know, having been on the front lines and all, yet still ask for them? To what end? You've been asked this many times and never answer, what is your point? Do you think there should be no restrictions whatsoever on firearm ownership? Do you think felons, even violent ones, should have no restrictions on firearm ownership? Are you claiming that the right to own guns with no restrictions does not substantially infringe upon the rights of others in society?

      "Seriously dude...your bigoted outlook is clouding our discussion."

      Seriously dude, your inability to form a cohesive rational point, and even approach anything resembling logic is preventing a rational conversation. You confuse emotion with intolerance of nonsense. Do you think that the second amendment should be an unlimited right, with no restrictions? For that matter, do you think any and all rights should be unlimited? If so, what do we do in situations where one person's right infringes upon the right of another?

      "The ObamaAdmin issued a memo stating that anyone who holds a Medical Marijuana Card is barred from possessing a firearm."

      This is an issue of Marijuana being listed as a schedule 1 controlled substance and the Federal government's insistence on maintaining its insane war on drugs. It isn't a misguided effort to take guns, but a misguided effort to reduce violent drug crimes via harsh penalties. It is a misguided effort to discourage medicinal marijuana usage. I agree that it's stupid, but again, what's your point? You are not forced to use medicinal marijuana. Furthermore, medicinal marijuana usage already carries with it potential punitive risks as it is still currently illegal under Federal law.

      "I truly can't see a way to overcome your prejudice attitude."

      My attitude isn't based off of prejudice. I have been an avid "gun enthusiast" in my life, previously owning numerous firearms. I was a big supporter of gun rights. My beliefs change as my understanding of the facts changed. We call this learning. My attitude is based off of observation of reality and acceptance of fact. You can't overcome that because you aren't engaging in discourse based around those principles. You're attempting to obfuscate facts, and deflect from reality. You make ridiculous statements, ignore huge gaps in the logic of your statements, and then contradict those statements later in your rebuttal.

      "but I don't go along with a life-time repeal on our basic rights, even after the sentence is completed. If the person is really that bad, then keep 'em locked up."

      You, by your own statements, would rather see someone convicted of a crime locked up for the entirety of their life (you're aware you can't own a gun in prison right?), than to serve a sentence, be released, and not be able to own a gun. This is somehow less of an infringement on their rights. (you ignore the rights of the rest of society entirely BTW) You believe this all while claiming to advocate for all rights. Apparently though, the right to own firearms is paramount to even the 8th amendment and/or indefinite detention. This is the real reason you can't "overcome my attitude", your cognitive dissonance.

      Delete
    7. "So, ostensibly you're aware of the examples, you know, having been on the front lines and all, yet still ask for them?"

      Because those examples...and the ones others have provided...aren't the same as the life-time gun bans. Voting was brought up, but not all states ban voting for life for felons and hence isn't a fair comparison.

      Do you think there should be no restrictions whatsoever on firearm ownership?

      I think there should be reasonable restrictions on all of the rights protected by the Constitution, but it is obvious that you&I define "reasonable" quite differently.

      Do you think felons, even violent ones, should have no restrictions on firearm ownership?

      I think that if someone is considered so violent that they have to be banned for life from the basic right to bear arms, then they are too violent to be walking around free.

      Do you think violent criminals should be in prison or on the streets?

      It is a misguided effort to discourage medicinal marijuana usage. I agree that it's stupid, but again, what's your point?

      My point is that it is a blanket revocation of right to bear arms, and I haven't seen anyone push to take away other basic rights due to having a Medical Marijuana Card.

      Also keep in mind that the ObamaAdmin didn't say that having a card is enough cause for an arrest, but it is enough to revoke the Second Amendment for those folks. Would you accept that (lose a constitutional right, but no need for an arrest) for any other of our basic rights?

      Seriously dude, your inability to form a cohesive rational point, and even approach anything resembling logic is preventing a rational conversation.

      Given the way you admit you're emotional about this issue (in another thread you said you "have to" call people names when discussing this) leads me to beleive our communication problem is due mostly to your personal prejudices. In your eyes, I'm nothing but a gun nut who also hates the 1st Amendment and supported the PatAct....and anything I have to say is filtered through that false label you've slapped on me.

      Whatever the reason, perhaps it would be best for all if I just avoid discussing anything with you, and instead I'll focus my attention towards those who can talk about the issue without having to resort to name-calling & false assumptions.

      Delete
    8. Now we're getting somewhere. When you answer and pose legitimate non-leading questions, it allows for honest dialogue.

      "Because those examples...and the ones others have provided...aren't the same as the life-time gun bans. Voting was brought up, but not all states ban voting for life for felons and hence isn't a fair comparison."

      You're moving the goalposts here. You wanted examples of "other basic rights that can be stripped from a citizen in such a broad manner". Numerous examples were given. It would seem to me that state residents not being able to exhibit first amendment rights within the state capitol is a much more egregious example of rights being stripped in a broad manner. Those citizens had their rights stripped without conviction of anything. Convicted felons also lose the right to hold public office, cannot obtain licenses for many jobs, have to submit DNA samples, lose access to Pell grants and certain other state aids. Again, this is punitive and protective in nature. Citizens accused of terrorism lose nearly all basic and civil rights. They can be targeted for summary execution by our government without a trial. Surely this qualifies as being stripped in a broad manner?

      "I think there should be reasonable restrictions on all of the rights protected by the Constitution, but it is obvious that you&I define "reasonable" quite differently."

      Fair enough, what do you consider reasonable? What restrictions then do you advocate?

      "I think that if someone is considered so violent that they have to be banned for life from the basic right to bear arms, then they are too violent to be walking around free. Do you think violent criminals should be in prison or on the streets?"

      I think, by and large, violent criminals should be imprisoned. I also think, for the most part, they are. The issue arises when criminals are convicted of less serious acts. An example would be an armed robber who robs a liquor store with an unloaded gun and no one is shot. This is still a violent crime, but one that realistically isn't deserving of a life sentence. However, the reality is that upon completing his/her prison sentence, there is a high likelihood of recidivism. The person has done their sentence and served their time, and is deserving of a chance to redeem themselves. However, we have a responsibility to protect the safety of the society in which that person will live. Statistics tell us that it is likely that that person will commit another crime. Now, this is probably a product of our justice system focusing heavily on punitive measures limiting options for the person to become productive. That however is a different discussion and one I suspect we would mostly agree upon. With the knowledge that this person will likely commit another crime (recidivism rates can be as high as 65% plus depending on a number of factors) we have a responsibility to take sensible measures to protect the safety and interests of the community. This is why we have sex offender registries, prevent sex offenders from living near schools etc.

      Again, we are in agreement regarding the medical marijuana issue. Having the card and a gun isn't the issue. The issue arises when one goes to purchase a gun and fills out the background check. If they check that they use illegal drugs, they can be denied purchase of the firearm. If they check that they don't, then they can be charged with falsifying the background check.

      Delete
    9. "Would you accept that (lose a constitutional right, but no need for an arrest) for any other of our basic rights?"

      As has been pointed out, and acknowledged by you, we've all accepted that. One doesn't need to have an arrest record to have lost the right to peaceably assemble and seek a redress of grievances at the capitol. One does not need to have been arrested to be subject to surveillance without a warrant. This is in fact the entire point of Maher's New Rules piece. We have all accepted loss of those rights. While gun nuts have been busy throwing absolute fits over even the slightest hint of studying gun regulations, we have ever so slowly been actually losing rights. Here's the real kicker. Many of the same people screaming the loudest about gun rights and how necessary they are to ensure the protection of other rights, have been the same people supporting the legislators and policies that have stripped away so many of those rights.

      "Given the way you admit you're emotional about this issue (in another thread you said you "have to" call people names when discussing this)"

      This was kind of what started the animosity, you're mischaracterizations of my statements and positions. This is no exception. Here's the exchange you're referring to:
      ""...gun nuts...gun nuts...gun nuts..."
      *sigh*
      Do ya really gotta go there?"

      Yes, I really gotta. What would you call these people? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADIAStLQjOI

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ

      So yes, gun nuts."

      So no, I never said I have to call people names. In fact, I wasn't even responding to you when I said gun nuts. I was using it as a generic term in reference to people who act, well, nutty, about guns. This is our essential problem. You don't seem interested in having an honest exchange of ideas.

      "In your eyes, I'm nothing but a gun nut who also hates the 1st Amendment and supported the PatAct....and anything I have to say is filtered through that false label you've slapped on me."

      Actually, I was aware, or at least had reason to believe that you weren't someone who "hates the 1st Amendment and supported the PatAct" which is exactly why I asked you the questions I did. I was trying to ascertain whether or not you were intentionally being obtuse, or if you really didn't understand. It seems that what has happened is that you've painted yourself into a corner with this nonsense about the second amendment being so easy to revoke. Rather than acknowledge that you erred in making that statement, you double down with false equivalencies and logical pretzels. This is where we're getting stuck. Furthermore, you can stop pretending that you haven't used any ad hominems or been rather impertinent yourself. In fact it was after this rather dismissive and disrespectful comment that I changed the tone with which I responded to you, "Shane, all due respect but if everyone always thought as you did then we'd be singing God Save the Queen before cricket matches rather than the Star Spangled Banner before baseball. But thank you for sharing your point of view, for real. " Something about those in glass houses not throwing stones seems appropriate here.

      Delete
  2. You don't lose your right to have a firearm when convicted of a misdemeanor unless it had to do with violence.

    Secondly, the right to vote is easily taken away. And the right to free speech and the right to ensemble are being pretty chopped up right now too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You don't lose your right to have a firearm when convicted of a misdemeanor unless it had to do with violence"

      Yup, that is why I said "some". And that is kinda weird, if ya think about what is actually being said: The person wasn't violent enough to warrant being locked up in prison, but we're gonna ban 'em, for life, from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

      Are there any other rights, specifically protected by the Constitutions, that can be repealed for life upon a conviction of a misdemeanor?

      Not to mention that all felons, even non-violent ones, lose their right to bear arms for the rest of their life. I can totally understand a heavy restriction of basic rights while in prison and/or on probation/parole, but I don't go along with a life-time repeal on our basic rights, even after the sentence is completed. If the person is really that bad, then keep 'em locked up.

      And, as I pointed out earlier, you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your Second Amendment Rights. The ObamaAdmin issued a memo stating that anyone who holds a Medical Marijuana Card is barred from possessing a firearm.

      "Secondly, the right to vote is easily taken away."

      Yup, it sure is. And I think we need to change that rather than emulate it.

      Delete
  3. Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to work for a politician? How does banning you from ever working for a campaign or a politician again any infringemnet on your speech rights?

    I dont want Darlene Wink, Tim russell, kelly reindfleisch to lose their speech, I just dont want them anywhere near a campaign ever again. Actually its the contrary, I wish they would speak MORE, but apparently with them they charge for their speech in terms of cutting deals. I uess their speech isnt free, it comes with a price to the taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to work for a politician?

      While not specifically mentioned by name, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment also covers the Freedom of Association.

      I dont want Darlene Wink, Tim russell, kelly reindfleisch to lose their speech, I just dont want them anywhere near a campaign ever again.

      I do understand that you don't want them to give up all their speech, rather just their political speech. I still think it is wrong. (Tho, I totally understand the sentiment being expressed)

      Delete
    2. This is hardly without precedent. The public has a right to an assumption that elections will be held in a fair and honest manner. Convictions of crimes moral turpitude is a bar to employment in many fields. Law, law enforcement, education, and banking to name a few. Hell certain convictions can bar you from a job as a cable TV installer. So, to prevent even the appearance of corruption in an election, it would hardly be out of line to insist that people who have been convicted of (some more than once) political corruption be barred from being part of the election process. To me, the public's right to corruption free elections trumps the free association rights of those convicted of political corruption. Call me crazy I guess.

      Delete
    3. I dont want thme to lose their "political speech"....the ycan write a LTE, start a blog, call up their friends(if they have any left), call up belling(if he doesnt screen their calls, like he does many others), etc....

      BY not allowing them to work in the political arena, the only thing they lose is the ability to sway elections illegally and the ability to soak the taxpayer. Their"freedom of speech" is quite safe.

      Which is one of the whiny things i hate about rush everytime he gets attacked for being an ass. If his show goes away he doesnt lose his "free speech rights" he loses his ability to put his show out on the peoples airwaves. Which FYI there is no where in the Constitution that you have to have a taxpayer funded massive avenue to have your rights....

      Delete
  4. So, PP, if a person's convicted of molesting a child, serves their time and is released, would you want them near children?

    If a drunk driver is convicted for the sixth time, serves their time, would you buy them the first drink?

    Should we keep these people locked up for life as well?

    It is better to have some restrictions than full restrictions, especially if it means allowing them to again become a contributing member of society.

    When you go to such extremism, you're the one being rather emotional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont want thme to lose their "political speech"

      Maybe you need to clarify what you mean when you say you want to make it illegal for 'em to be "anywhere near a campaign", 'cause that is a pretty broad statement.

      Also, if what you claim is correct (The right to be part of a political campaign is not protected by the Constitution at all) then what is preventing the GOP from enacting a law that bans anyone who signed a recall petition from being involved in a campaign? Ain't saying they would do such a thing, but how would you be able to say such a law is wrong if there ain't any rights being violated?


      So, PP, if a person's convicted of molesting a child, serves their time and is released, would you want them near children?

      I think that if they are still a danger to children, then they should remain locked up. Why would you want a dangerous molester on the streets?

      If a drunk driver is convicted for the sixth time, serves their time, would you buy them the first drink?

      I think that they should have been in prison long before they got that 6th DUI. But I would still be against a lifetime ban on booze being enacted against people convicted of DUI, even multiple times. If they are really unable to control themselves from becoming a danger to society, then they need to be removed from society.

      If beleiving that makes me an extreme & emotional guy in your eyes, well...whateva...I've been called a lot worse by better folks. :D

      Delete
  5. 1. They have made aserious attempt at demonizing and intimidating anyone who actually did sign the recall. Also its a poor analogy since signing the recall is a Constitutionally protected right while campaigning on taxpayer dime is illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What PP fails to see is that the world is not black and white and balance is the optimal solution.

    ReplyDelete