Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

N.R.A. vs. Joe Biden

March 15, 2013

A recent letter by Mr. Yoxtheimer once again illustrates the Alinskian method of demonizing those that have differing opinions from the left. The N.R.A....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(70)

Bufftrev1

Mar-16-13 9:39 AM

Precisely why you do not have absolute freedom regarding either topic, erik..

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-16-13 9:24 AM

Free speech does not threaten anyone's safety until a person decides to misuse it. Words by themselves are not a threat.

Likewise, semi-automatic weapons do not threaten people's safety until a person decides to do so.

Therefore, banning semi-automatic weapons is like banning the word "fire" from every being spoken.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Mar-16-13 7:48 AM

I wonder if anyone here has come up with an example yet of that "absolute" right that Americans have that's not limited in any way? I, and I'm sure others here would like to see it.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Mar-16-13 5:19 AM

"I see Wayne LaPierre spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Tell me this isn't political." - rick424

*

ANY time Wayne LaPierre speaks is all about sales-and-marketing.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Mar-15-13 9:37 PM

"CHayes, So far everything you have mentioned is, as I have said, causing harm to another person"

So it's your contention that citizens not being able to walk around with full auto weapons, RPG's and nuclear weapons, falls into the category of "causing harm to others"?

Threatening the President is "causing harm to others"?

Calling in a fake bomb threat is "causing harm to others"?

Bull****. EVERY SINGLE right Americans have is limited in some very substantial way. Period. You can admit it or not, but it's pretty clear to anyone with an IQ over 50.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-15-13 9:35 PM

Hi enigma.. I didba google search but results are all over the place.. but here ya go, I believe that if the gov has real time intelligence that a terror attack is about to happen and a drone attack is the only way to prevent it, I want them to have the authority to do so, even if that terrorist is an american citizen. If a drone strike could have taken down a plane on 9/11, killing a hundred but saving thousands, what is the moral thing to do? Impossible questions, indeed. And, I might add that your blind faith that all things and people in government are conspiratorial is equally astounding..

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Mar-15-13 9:34 PM

"How can you not believe that the administration claimed the authority to kill Americans on American soil without due process"

The administration has NEVER said anything even remotely like that.

Besides, Americans are killed on American soil without due process EVERY DAY, by law enforcement, and I sure don't have any problem with it, and furthermore neither do you.

The Americans that you people whine about being killed on foreign soil, were FULL FLEGED al Qaeda members, that were at war with the US. It's inconceivable to me that ANY patriotic American would complain one iota about killing people who have sworn to kill as many Americans as possible. But there you have it.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-15-13 9:16 PM

You are not free to yell fire or he's got a gun in a crowded theatre.. the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime you want is not absolute.. same for guns, you do not have the absolute right to own any gun ever made.. nor do you have the right to bear arms any place you like, you are not free to bear arms in gun free school zones.. nor are you free to bear arms in federal buildings in dc, as the armed guards and metal detectors will attest to.. I agree with chayes, most, if not all, rights are not absolute.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Mar-15-13 9:06 PM

Buff, That's why I don't use my Droid for anything like this. How can you not believe that the administration claimed the authority to kill Americans on American soil without due process? Even MSNBC reported this one because even they couldn't go along with it. They were finally forced to back down to some extent although they still left a crack in the door to claim that authority in the future. It had nothing to do with a terrorist on the way to blow something up. All that was required is that a senior administration official believed that the person was involved in activities which could be dangerous to the United States, and they repeatly rebuffed the term immediate threat in favor of imminent threat. This is a big difference in legal terms. It is a clear violation of both the fifth and sixth amendments. Your blind faith in government is astounding.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Mar-15-13 8:53 PM

CHayes, So far everything you have mentioned is, as I have said, causing harm to another person. The right is not limited, you may not practice it in a way that harms another. If you are in the process of killing someone in your home, their right to be saved overrules your right to be secure in your home. Your belief that you should not receive vital healthcare does not allow you to keep someone else from getting it. This is such an easy concept, that even you should be able to grasp it, unless you just don't want to. It seems that the only real limitation you have come up with is concerning the Second Amendment. There are actually others, but they are unconstitutional also.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-15-13 8:50 PM

Hi enigma.. sorry, had to re boot my droid.. I was going to go along the lines of what chayes posted but he beat me to it.. he's provided good examples, I could provide more but probably not necessary.. regarding your subsequent post, I think the gov has probably been monitoring communications much longer than that, probably at Ft Meade, in MD.. regarding the memo portion of your post, the part where you said they can kill someone not actively involved is where you lost me.. sorry, don't believe that for a second. If a terrorist is about to blow up a truckload of fertilizer and kill hundreds or thousands and the only way to stop them is with a drone and a missile, then I want the gov to have that authority.. time for food, just got done working out.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Mar-15-13 8:43 PM

Chayes, How is the 3rd amendment limited?

BTW Your answers so far are wrong. Compromising secrets is not a restrition on freedom of speech, it is a limitation of harm to the country. If you can prove that divulging the information does no harm, you cannot be punished. Voter registration is not a restriction, it is a protection against any one person voting more than once and thus doing harm to the rest of us.

I agree that many of our rights have been violated, but that does not justify that more violations should be permitted.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Mar-15-13 8:36 PM

Right to not have your home searched without a warrant? Not if the police think someone is in imminent peril inside. And guess what. If you have a kilo of coke, or a full auto M4 laying on your kitchen table when they come in, you don't get to keep it.

Freedom of religion? If your religion involves denying a child normal, adequate care, you're out of luck again.

Are you starting to get the idea yet? And just this morning you thought you lived in a black and white world where all rights were absolute. Now what?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Mar-15-13 8:29 PM

" Prove it."

We've done this before. Do we really have to do it again?

Right to "free speech"? Try giving classified information to a reporter, or publically threaten the President's life.

Right to bear arms? Not fully automatic arms. Not RPG's. Not nuclear arms.

Right to vote? Only if you're registered.

Should we play this game all night?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Mar-15-13 8:26 PM

" while an AR-15 may look like a military rifle, it is in fact a moderate caliber semiautomatic rifle available"

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure AR-15 clones are available in a variety of calibres. Not that it makes a difference. The problem people have with them, isn't caliber, its the number if bullets they can dump out in a very short period of time. If you think most AR-15's are "moderate caliber", please tell us what would happen if someone shot another person in the head with one from say, 6 feet away.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Mar-15-13 8:24 PM

CHayes,"EVERY right is limited in some way. Every single one."

Prove it.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Mar-15-13 8:21 PM

" Rights are absolute or they are not rights."

This is about the tenth time I've had to point this out to you, but there is no right an American citizen has that is "absolute".

EVERY right is limited in some way. Every single one.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Mar-15-13 8:17 PM

Buff, I am puzzled by your faith in the government as a defender of rights. Since the Clinton adminstration the government has been spying on the American people in direct violation of the 4th Amendment. This program picked up steam under the Bush administration and the plan is nearing completion under Obama. All electronic communications will be gathered and saved indefinitely by the government. We have direct wiretapping without a warrant. Just recently the administration issued a memo claiming the authority to kill an American on American soil, who is not actively involved in a crime without due process of any kind. We now have hate crimes in which the government claims to know what you were thinking. There is talk of making some speech illegal. We have laws governing what we can eat or drink, and you think that the government is looking out for your rights. I'm just puzzled, I'm an optimistic person, but when it comes to government, I see little cause for optimism.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-15-13 8:13 PM

Hi enigma.. I can see your point to a degree but I disagree.. it may be an issue of semantics. You are free to say f

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Mar-15-13 8:00 PM

Rights are absolute or they are not rights. You have the right to say anything you want. You can even say 'fire'. What you cannot do is use that speech to harm others by yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre to induce a panic and possibly hurt people. Now let's apply that to the second amendment. You have the right to own any weapon you want. You do not have the right to use it in a way that harms people. The right is absolute, the restriction is on the way it is used. Banning any type of weapon would be like outlawing some words, or some books, or some movies.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-15-13 7:20 PM

Hi erik.. I think I'm pretty open minded, as are most progressives. Like most, I support gay marriage.. I also support legalizing marijuana..I support the idea that profitable corporations should pay taxes. Pretty open minded and reasonable, I believe. And, I believe that there are certain military grade and style weapons that should not be for sale to the general populace.. there ya go, that's what I believe..

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-15-13 7:11 PM

Buff:

If you're open-minded, then imagine this. It is 1787. The Bill of Rights are being written.

Citizens owned the same weapons as the Continental Army.

Fast forward to 2013. Citizens should be allowed to own the same weapons as our military.

Arms are those carried by men. So, this is rifles, pistols and magazines.

It does not include cannons (artillery today) or tanks (even though I know people who own legal, functioning tanks).

The fact remains that small arms in the hands of civilians is not a problem. Drug gangs have access to the same weapons from all the wars worldwide.

Machine guns and semi-automatics are not used in many crimes. Look for the data from the FBI.

Handguns are far more preferred, but not addressed in any current legislation (for now).

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Mar-15-13 7:06 PM

Hi erik.. oliver wendell holmes jr in schenck vs the united states says you are wrong. An M60 is not a an M61 vulcan, is it.. you have a nice day too.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-15-13 7:03 PM

Buff:

I own a legal, fully automatic, M60.

No limitations. Have a nice day.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-15-13 7:01 PM

Buff:

The "shouting fire in a theater" is not a limitation on free speech. It is an example of actions that cause harm to others.

The example is a frequent mistake by those who think they know the Constitution.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 70 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web