Legal Actions Become Illegal If People Say They Are Alarmed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The reason the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are compared so frequently is that they come from the same place.

---

The founding fathers did not invent free speech.

To say that the 2nd ammendment is there to protect opposition to the government sounds like an excuse. The US government and presidents have been lying to you guys for ages now, REBEL ALREADY! How does walking around with a loaded AK47 in a suburban area constitute as exercising one's right to rebel against a repressive government?

You don't need guns to overthrow a dictator. The only ones with guns on the streets of Belgrade on the 5th October 2000 were the Milošević faithful among the police.

WarHeart88: I think Don Corleone means it differently. Namely, that both the Right to Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms (the latter asserted in an incredibly pathetically vague statement :dizzy2: ) in the USA comes from the same legal justification: the Bill of Rights, or the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution.

From that viewpoint his point is firm in principle. Sure for the modern Western world everyone with half a brain (excluding social conservatives, but since when did they ever have brains?) think that Freedom of Speech is a fundamental, inalienable right or at least it should be. But from a legal standpoint that's where the rights come from in the USA, and I think I can safely assert that governments like to take away rights whenever they could so a clear, inalienable legal standpoint is required to protect such rights from incursions.

That it's already failed countless time is another topic :clown: *mumbles something about the Patriot Act and Neocon scumbags*

The whole "we need guns to fight the dictatorial government" is just propaganda/excuse BS. It was true back when "the government" was the British Empire trying to subdue the American rebels in the hills of Massachusetts; it's not true in the era of F-117's, Reality TV's, and crowd control weapons.

I was never enamoured with guns (then again I was never enamoured with cars, so my hippie credentials is probably stronger than half of liberal America at least) and can't see why anyone would think it's cool to walk around with loaded Kalashnikovs in public. Gun Control Ninny I am? Well, if that's what it takes to not have loonies walk around with frickin' loaded Kalashnikovs in public.

I know how he meant it, that's just my point. The right to free speech is universal wherever you go, whenever you live. The loosely defined right to bear arms was written down 200+ years ago so that an invading or colonial force would not be allowed to take the land.

And you're right, it is a pathetic excuse for gun-lovers; when you go to a protest, you don't bring an Avtomat Kalashnikov along with you...

Don't you think that all this controversy regarding guns "masks" (to an extent) problems regarding freedom of speech? If someone attends a presidential speech carrying symbols of support (badges and whatnot, it might as well be a gun) they're welcome, but if they're disagreeing they can be removed even though they're not threatening anyone? How many people have been dubbed as "anti-American" because they don't agree with the war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHeart88

I know how he meant it, that's just my point. The right to free speech is universal wherever you go, whenever you live. The loosely defined right to bear arms was written down 200+ years ago so that an invading or colonial force would not be allowed to take the land.

---

While the original intent no longer holds any practical value, I still think Don Corleone's point stands -- in fact I agree with him -- that we probably don't need a reevaluation of the practicality of the provisions within the Bill of Rights right now, or even ever. I might be a little scared of guns always but I'm sure it's a small sacrifice on my part for others to have their fun in the shooting ranges and the hunting fields...or even self-defense. Mostly.

Obviously loaded Kalashnikovs in public is waaaaay overboard. Nobody needs that stuff for hunting or self-defense.

A debate on practicality will eventually leads to bad conclusions. Pragmatism has never been known for its ability to accommodate inalienable human rights...

It's quite funny since the same Bill of Rights has in fact changed in practice a lot since those days anyway. The essentially irrelevant 3rd Amendment has been morphed into a "Right to Privacy," not that I mind, of course; I'm certainly more concerned about my privacy than "soldiers quartering in my home."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHeart88

Don't you think that all this controversy regarding guns "masks" (to an extent) problems regarding freedom of speech? If someone attends a presidential speech carrying symbols of support (badges and whatnot, it might as well be a gun) they're welcome, but if they're disagreeing they can be removed even though they're not threatening anyone? How many people have been dubbed as "anti-American" because they don't agree with the war?

---

To be fair, such limits on Freedom of Speech go for both sides of the political spectrum and is in fact widespread in most Western countries. Do I agree with you that sucks and the governments really need to stop ruining my soapbox? Hell yes. Protecting public peace and order my ass, it's just a political favor for the political elite.

This seems fine to me, except for the part about whether it disturbed the peace or not being decided by whether somebody was 'alarmed'. However, I suspect that the US police must have an objective standard about what constitutes a breach of the peace, and that it was the fact that he broke this, rather than the fact that someone complained, that resulted in his arrest.

If this fellow had had the nouse to put his gun in a case, I imagine no-one would have bothered him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

This seems fine to me, except for the part about whether it disturbed the peace or not being decided by whether somebody was 'alarmed'. However, I suspect that the US police must have an objective standard about what constitutes a breach of the peace, and that it was the fact that he broke this, rather than the fact he was carrying a weapon round, that resulted in his arrest.

If this fellow had had the nouse to put his gun in a case, I imagine no-one would have bothered him.

---

Actually, Disturbing the Peace is notoriously subjective, to the point that the term is a euphemism for "the cops don't like you". The police would tell you anybody, on any given day, could be arrested at least 5 times and convicted twice for breach of peace. Including the President. It has almost no burden of proof. Disturbing the peace is whatever the peace officer says it is, and judges have consistently upheld this viewpoint.

Really? Oh. Well, that is troublesome.

Perhaps I'm just being naive.

Edit-Hmm, I checked to see how it worked in the UK, and apparently Breach of the Peace isn't actually a crime here-it's a "legal oddity created by Royal perogative". You can't be punished for it, it's a just a way of removing someone from a location: however, a magistrate can have you "bound over" to keep the peace in future-and if you breach it again, you can be imprisoned. It also doesn't give you a criminal record, as it's not a criminal offence.

Learn something new every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

While the original intent no longer holds any practical value, I still think Don Corleone's point stands -- in fact I agree with him

---

Sorry, I was vague. I agree with you and Don Corleone. I just have a problem with people equating free speech and guns just because the Bill of Rights happens to mention them both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Actually, Disturbing the Peace is notoriously subjective, to the point that the term is a euphemism for "the cops don't like you". The police would tell you anybody, on any given day, could be arrested at least 5 times and convicted twice for breach of peace. Including the President. It has almost no burden of proof. Disturbing the peace is whatever the peace officer says it is, and judges have consistently upheld this viewpoint.

---

I thought that 'breach of public peace' or something like that should depend on those around the "perpetrator" who report him, not on the officer who actually arrests him. Like the guy with the AK47: he wasn't bothering the cops who arrested him, but the people around him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHeart88

Sorry, I was vague. I agree with you and Don Corleone. I just have a problem with people equating free speech and guns just because the Bill of Rights happens to mention them both.


I thought that 'breach of public peace' or something like that should depend on those around the "perpetrator" who report him, not on the officer who actually arrests him. Like the guy with the AK47: he wasn't bothering the cops who arrested him, but the people around him.

---

So all it takes is one phone call to my local police department and I can get my neighbor arrested? Wow, you must be a lawyer, trying to generate business....

I'm not equating the two rights. I'm equating how the came to be guaranteed within the framework of US Law. Despite what you might happen to think, there is nothing inherent or universal about free speech. Go to Myanamar and say you think the government is a bit excessive and repressive. Then we'll talk about how universal free speech is.

The idea of universal free speech is widely held, sure. But the reality is that it doesn't become palpable until it is enacted into law within the framework of a particular country's legal system. In the US, that means the Constitution. The Constitution is not inalterable. It wasn't intended to be. But the framers DID want to make certain that a change was carefully considered and had broad popular support before being enacted. It wasn't until Roe v. Wade that this treasonous attitude of "The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says" came about. Prior to that, sure there were plenty of violations, but they were recognized as such. The governement couldn't just come out and declare that "white is black" by fiat. Now they can, and do. The right to property begins and ends where the businesses who bribe your city government choose to say it is (see Kelo v. New London).

There we go. A Dim Sum cart full of Don Corleone's outrage over the abuse of the Constitution. Where's the John Birch society when you need 'em. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So all it takes is one phone call to my local police department and I can get my neighbor arrested? Wow, you must be a lawyer, trying to generate business....

I'm not equating the two rights. I'm equating how the came to be guaranteed within the framework of US Law. Despite what you might happen to think, there is nothing inherent or universal about free speech. Go to Myanamar and say you think the government is a bit excessive and repressive. Then we'll talk about how universal free speech is.

---

I never said you equated them as rights. And your neighbor has to actually disturb you and others somehow (REALLY loud music, etc.), otherwise you'll be arrested for making a prank call.
And free speech should be universal. Just because it's like that in Myanmar doesn't mean it should be like that in the US or any other country. In my country, just 10 or so years ago, people died for free speech. Killed by guns that some of the people on this thread apparently love so much. So excuse me for believing that guns and freedom of speech should never go hand in hand. They can't go hand in hand. Regardless of what a 200+ year old document says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHeart88

I never said you equated them as rights. And your neighbor has to actually disturb you and others somehow (REALLY loud music, etc.), otherwise you'll be arrested for making a prank call.
And free speech should be universal. Just because it's like that in Myanmar doesn't mean it should be like that in the US or any other country. In my country, just 10 or so years ago, people died for free speech. Killed by guns that some of the people on this thread apparently love so much. So excuse me for believing that guns and freedom of speech should never go hand in hand. They can't go hand in hand. Regardless of what a 200+ year old document says.

---

I see. So at the end of the day, your argument is "I'm right because I know I am"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I see. So at the end of the day, your argument is "I'm right because I know I am"?

---

I never said that. That's what I believe in. Got a problem with that? What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHeart88

I never said that.

---

Hence why I asked, not stated. No, you did not use that particular phrase, but you have failed to offer any justification for your views and your absolute conviction that you're 100% correct. You've also failed to answer those that disagree with you, myself espeically on any substantive grounds. You simply keep saying "that's not how it should be" "or this is how it should be". It would be nice if you could offer some objective criteria for the rest of us to consider.

Quote:

---

That's what I believe in. Got a problem with that?

---

Not at all. If your point is "I believe in it just because I do", that's fine and its certainly your right. But let's identify that as your reasoning. Claiming that there's some universal authority or assumption of rights is dangerous, because it ignores the need to be vigilant for one's rights. I don't have free speech because it's a universal fact. I have free speech (or the limited form of it I enjoy) because of the laws within my country that recognize it.

Quote:

---

Got a problem with that? What's your point?

---

I'm not intending to provoke you, but you appear to be getting agitated. Perhaps we can resume this discussion when you've calmed down?

I'm not agitated a bit (sorry if I gave off such an impression). The thing is, I remeber those words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." I didn't think I needed to EXPLAIN why freedom of speech should be guranteed (by law) to every individual, regardless of where they live. This does not apply to weapons. They can be used to deny other human beings of their inalienable rights, therefore they shouldn't be sold like friggin' ice-cream (as in: available to absolutely everyone). That has to be controlled for the sake of the people and their safety so that the massacre we all saw in the news a few months ago does not repeat itself.

And what would you think if a lunatic with a loaded AK47 strolled right past your family home? Wouldn't you feel compelled to call the cops and have him arrested, regardless of what the Constitution says about the right to carry lethal weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHeart88

I'm not agitated a bit (sorry if I gave off such an impression). The thing is, I remeber those words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." I didn't think I needed to EXPLAIN why freedom of speech should be guranteed (by law) to every individual, regardless of where they live. This does not apply to weapons. They can be used to deny other human beings of their inalienable rights, therefore they shouldn't be sold like friggin' ice-cream (as in: available to absolutely everyone). That has to be controlled for the sake of the people and their safety so that the massacre we all saw in the news a few months ago does not repeat itself.

And what would you think if a lunatic with a loaded AK47 strolled right past your family home? Wouldn't you feel compelled to call the cops and have him arrested, regardless of what the Constitution says about the right to carry lethal weapons?

---

First, read what I've written and then ask yourself if I'm defending the rights of somebody to roam around with a loaded AK47.

Second, I never said this was a debate about justifying the value of rights.

Quote:

---

I didn't think I needed to EXPLAIN why freedom of speech should be guranteed

---

You don't, and I never said you should. I said that all this talk about Universal Human Rights is nothing but hot air until somebody who can actually do something about it signs on.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to recognize that prinicples themselves carry no direct weight, that they can only influence those who wield power, not control them. That is the gist of my argument. And every time you grant those in power the authority to take away some of my rights, because you don't like what I do, in reality you're weakening your own case for defending your own rights in the process.

Wait a minute - where is it legal to walk around with a loaded AK-47 in a crowded neighborhood? At night? Walking down the middle of a street? Only illegal if it scares someone? Gah! Who in their right mind wouldn't be concerned seeing somone strolling about their neighborhood with a loaded semi-auto?

Of course here in Florida we could just shoot the guy because we felt threatened - no need to call the cops ... 'til his body started smelling. :yes:

And now, go on back to the legaleeze about the Bill of Rights and such.

:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Second, I never said this was a debate about justifying the value of rights. You don't, and I never said you should. I said that all this talk about Universal Human Rights is nothing but hot air until somebody who can actually do something about it signs on.

Sooner or later, you're going to have to recognize that prinicples themselves carry no direct weight, that they can only influence those who wield power, not control them. That is the gist of my argument. And every time you grant those in power the authority to take away some of my rights, because you don't like what I do, in reality you're weakening your own case for defending your own rights in the process.

---

It's the people who have to defend their own rights, there ain't anyone who's gonna "do something about it" for you. Those in power obey the law, and the right to bear arms is not inalienable for every human being, some are more likely to use it for it's original purpose: to kill someone. What's the point of treating these two rights in question as equals and giving guns to millions of people if only one of them goes on a killing spree and takes out dozens of innocent lives? I'm not weakening my case as, once again, these two rights shouldn't have anything to do with each other.

The "inalienable" rights are labeled as such because they have been deemed to be inherent to the human individual. That is, a government or other individuals may deny these rights or prevent their use by an individual, but cannot remove these rights from the human condition. The moment tyranny lapses, these rights will spring to the surface.

At least, that's the concept.

I'm more of a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property and government as a social contract to secure the same.

Quick question:

If I were to see the subject of the thread walking toward the front door of an elementary school with his AK47 (exercising his perfectly legal right to bear arms), while I was carrying my Glock 9mm (again, exercising my constitutionally protected right to bear arms) and (after judging the risk to the children to warrant quick, decisive action) I pumped a couple of rounds into his center of mass, does anybody think I would spend any time in jail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Quick question:

If I were to see the subject of the thread walking toward the front door of an elementary school with his AK47 (exercising his perfectly legal right to bear arms), while I was carrying my Glock 9mm (again, exercising my constitutionally protected right to bear arms) and (after judging the risk to the children to warrant quick, decisive action) I pumped a couple of rounds into his center of mass, does anybody think I would spend any time in jail?

---

In Florida, you'd probably get a medal.

In California, you'd be held as a "person of interest", interviewed/interrogated by cops, then, if thiings turn out the way you described them above, released... only to be sued 3 months later by the AK47's next-of-kin for loss of life-time wages, and alienation of affection.

In Toronto, you'd probably have to go to counselling, for the obviously delusional thinking that you could carry a weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

In Florida, you'd probably get a medal.

In California, you'd be held as a "person of interest", interviewed/interrogated by cops, then, if thiings turn out the way you described them above, released... only to be sued 3 months later by the AK47's next-of-kin for loss of life-time wages, and alienation of affection.

In Toronto, you'd probably have to go to counselling, for the obviously delusional thinking that you could carry a weapon.

---

ROFL! :laugh4:
Excellent clarification, Kukri, YOU deserve a medal for this! :2thumbsup:

Gah, this is hopeless.

At least Gregoshi agrees with me. :2thumbsup:

I'll point out that I am not against police getting alerted and talking to a person like this - making sure he's not crazy or violent. But if it turns out that he's not either, why arrest him?

Why should the feelings of an unaffected person dictate whether or not a man is thrown in jail? I don't want to hear if it isn't good sense or smart or any of a hundred things that don't matter legally.

Ah, well...

*goes back to stand athwart history and yell 'stop!'*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarHeart88

The right to free speech is universal wherever you go, whenever you live.

---

Legally, no. Your government must protect your right to free speech. Many governments do not.

If you're speaking in abstract universals, yes you have an inherent right to free speech, and I'd argue you also have an inherent right to self-defense. It's still up to your government to decide how to defend and apply such rights in legal terms, and the bill of rights does just that for America, with the first and second amendments contributing to the defense of said rights. It's very interesting to hear you say it's up to the people to defend their rights while also suggesting they shouldn't have the right to carry weapons. "What do you want us to use? Harsh language?"

On the original topic, though, I feel very alarmed that my 15-year-old sister is driving. Can I call up the cops and have them confiscate her permit?

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

At least Gregoshi agrees with me. :2thumbsup:

---

I can tell you are alarmed by that statement CR, so I'll just turn myself in now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Gah, this is hopeless.

At least Gregoshi agrees with me. :2thumbsup:

---

Put me down too.

Quote:

---

I'll point out that I am not against police getting alerted and talking to a person like this - making sure he's not crazy or violent. But if it turns out that he's not either, why arrest him?

---

And that's exactly what should have happened. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'll point out that I am not against police getting alerted and talking to a person like this - making sure he's not crazy or violent. But if it turns out that he's not either, why arrest him?

---

Who knows? Perhaps this guy exercised his free speech to mouth off at the police about his right to bear arms instead of explaining WTF he's doing? That's the sort of obnoxious behaviour that gets you arrested instead of sent home with the advice to be more careful in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I'll point out that I am not against police getting alerted and talking to a person like this - making sure he's not crazy or violent. But if it turns out that he's not either, why arrest him?

---

Well, I'm sure that if he was a member of the russian army and had some of his friends with him, you wouldn't only call it alarming, you'd call it an invasion. Otherwise I know how I'd invade the US.:laugh4:

A good litmus test for actions is "would society be better off if everyone did it?" If you apply carrying a loaded AK-47 to this question, my answer is no. The reason we have gun control and arms control, as well as many other rules and regulations, is to prevent whats called "a race to the bottom". If you let someone walk around with a loaded AK, he is more safe but others become less safe. Others will then walk around with a loaded AK to feel more safe. When there are more people walking around with an AK, everyone ends up less safe. Therefore, you impose laws and regulations on society in order to make some sort of limit or cap on actions. If this person wishes to interact with society, they need to understand that walking around with a loaded projectile is not only dangerous, but makes people nervous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

A good litmus test for actions is "would society be better off if everyone did it?" If you apply carrying a loaded AK-47 to this question, my answer is no. The reason we have gun control and arms control, as well as many other rules and regulations, is to prevent whats called "a race to the bottom". If you let someone walk around with a loaded AK, he is more safe but others become less safe. Others will then walk around with a loaded AK to feel more safe. When there are more people walking around with an AK, everyone ends up less safe. Therefore, you impose laws and regulations on society in order to make some sort of limit or cap on actions. If this person wishes to interact with society, they need to understand that walking around with a loaded projectile is not only dangerous, but makes people nervous.

---

Your basic premise -- that the greater the percentage of the population that is armed, the greater the risk to that population from itself -- is not necessarily born out by facts. Consider:

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=4&id=572

In such circumstances as the "Old West" frontier, the near ubiquitous nature of personal gun ownership seems to have mediated against violence. It should be noted that figures on the rate of gun accidents are impossible to determine and that the low rate of violence discussed in the Old West by these researchers does NOT include violence between Amerinds and White "invaders," but overall the picture of a universally armed population is not as bleak as you suggest.

How much easier is it to restrict speech of a disarmed populace than an armed one?