Just_A_Guy

No Guns in Sacrament Meeting—We Mean It This Time!!!

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Depends on training and mindset.

Interesting you mentioned mindset - I think mindset can included the use of a mind altering substance (including alcohol).  Someone can lose their right to drive? (driver's license) from what is called a DUI.  It is possible (from a rights point of view) that we ought to limit someone's use of or access to a firearm because of a record of substance abuse?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have a right to drive.  It's a social contract governed by taxes and licensing and whatnot.   Government builds and maintains the roads.  The Govt issues the Driver's license.

You have a right to own arms.  Government doesn't grant you the right, government is there to protect and preserve the right, and is constitutionally limited in ways it can mess with that right.

You're smart Traveler, you just asked this question to see that someone knew the correct answer, right?

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You don't have a right to drive.  It's a social contract governed by taxes and licensing and whatnot.   Government builds and maintains the roads.  The Govt issues the Driver's license.

You have a right to own arms.  Government doesn't grant you the right, government is there to protect and preserve the right, and is constitutionally limited in ways it can mess with that right.

You're smart Traveler, you just asked this question to see that someone knew the correct answer, right?

 

This is technically inaccurate.  ALL RIGHTS rests with the people unless the people surrender that right over to the government.  Therefore, you have the right to drive, spit as far as you can, poop anywhere, etc. etc.  BUT... unless it is enumerated as a protected right under the Constitution, the government (or anybody else for that matter) doesn't have to protect such right.  And that's why the government can prevent/authorize you from driving as it is not a constitutionally protected right.  Bearing of arms, on the other hand, is a protected right.  

By the way... you don't have a right to healthCARE.  You only have the right to health.  This is because, your rights end where someone else's rights begin.  Therefore, you do not have the right to make somebody else provide you with care so you can have health.  That would be... slavery.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

ALL RIGHTS rests with the people unless the people surrender that right over to the government.

Indeed.  And property is a biggie.  You just can't go barging your SUV towing your tiny house across everyone's property, it would be a violation of their rights.  Since the people need to get places, it's one of the times it makes sense to have government own the property on which the roadways lie, and maintain the roadways.  And since the people are interested in getting to places safely and effectively, it makes sense to have the government run the show.

Here's a video.  We tried it like this at first, but it became obvious that everybody agreeing to live under the same set of licensing and road standards, enforced by the government's ability to use force against it's own citizens, would be the best solution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is technically inaccurate.  ALL RIGHTS rests with the people unless the people surrender that right over to the government.  Therefore, you have the right to drive, spit as far as you can, poop anywhere, etc. etc.  BUT... unless it is enumerated as a protected right under the Constitution, the government (or anybody else for that matter) doesn't have to protect such right.  And that's why the government can prevent/authorize you from driving as it is not a constitutionally protected right.  Bearing of arms, on the other hand, is a protected right.  

By the way... you don't have a right to healthCARE.  You only have the right to health.  This is because, your rights end where someone else's rights begin.  Therefore, you do not have the right to make somebody else provide you with care so you can have health.  That would be... slavery.

The government not being forced to protect a right doesn't mean it isn't a right.  The government deciding they can take away, or regulate, a right also doesn't mean it isn't a right.  Do you think innocent people didn't have a right to freedom because we legally enslaved them?

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You don't have a right to drive.  It's a social contract governed by taxes and licensing and whatnot.   Government builds and maintains the roads.  The Govt issues the Driver's license.

You have a right to own arms.  Government doesn't grant you the right, government is there to protect and preserve the right, and is constitutionally limited in ways it can mess with that right.

You're smart Traveler, you just asked this question to see that someone knew the correct answer, right?

 

We can think of rights in two categories - inclusionary and exclusionary.  Inclusionary right are a list like A,B,C and D.  But since E is not on the list - that would not be a right.  E may be something that you can do but it is not a right.  It may not be unlawful - but it is not a right.  Exclusionary are things that are in the list that are not rights.  The assumption that anything else would be a right.  Often we use both inclusion and exclusion to define our rights under the constitution.  For example, the first Amendment is the right of free speech.  But there is no list.  To then define the law (without changing the constitution) there are exclusions like Yelling fire in a crowded public place is not free speech.  There is some debate going on if "hate speech" is a right because it is not on the exclusion list - yet.

I am not an expert - but I believe there is in the law somewhat of a common law - perhaps @Just_A_Guy can comment.  This is in essence laws granting right based in what I believe is called common law.  This is in essence rights granted because that is how it has been done (president) for some time (often here in the USA this goes back to when we were subject to the king of England).  This is why the IRS can take taxes whenever it wants or during a bankruptcy before creditors are paid or even due process - because the Government (king) has the first right to its taxes - so if you think you are innocent you must prove that the government is not innocent in taking its taxes (which rightfully belong to them).

I did not want to get into if the use of public fairways is a right or not - so much as to demonstrate that through exclusions government can limit your rights.  For example - when someone breaks the law and becomes a felon their right to bear arms is no longer a right.  It is obvious that there are exclusions to the 2nd Amendment.  This is made obvious by requiring a background check.  If there were no exclusions a background check would be wasted time.

Now I want to say something.  I grew up with firearms.  I obtained my first rifle at age 10.  It was used mostly for hunting rabbits which I did to earn money.  At age 17 I joined the army, during the Vietnam era.  I never saw combat - but I have been under fire.  Some nut job was shooting at me but lucky for he he was drunk and could only scare the h-ll out of me.  I am 100% convinced that the only reason he was firing at me is because he was drunk - or as @mirkwood might say (in a mind state).

What I am asking of the forum is:  In light of gun violence in this country and the propensity that such violence is often related to mind altering drugs.  Perhaps we ought to think that addiction to or regular use to the level of intoxication of such drugs is perhaps an exclusion for the 2nd Amendment and therefore a reason to exclude that person from a right to bear arms (access to firearms).  For sure we do not want them operating a motorized vehicle - if someone is intoxicated walking around with a loaded firearm - is that so much less of a concern to public safety?

For all the talk about taking firearms away from citizens - I have never heard anyone suggest this.  Since I came to recently think of this - I thought to put it out to this forum for comment.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fether said:

What I’m talking about is purely situational. I just ask how many rounds can a prepared assailant get off before an armed church member figures out what’s going on, targets the shooter, draws his weapon, aims to make sure not to hit anyone else, and fires. I would assume at least an entire clip if it is a hand gun. But if there was a man in the front row of the overflow that watching him come in, a quick tackle may he a better option. But that would require specific conditions.

How is it that only oblivious imbeciles can be armed, while unarmed ushers have superhuman awareness and speed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NightSG said:

How is it that only oblivious imbeciles can be armed, while unarmed ushers have superhuman awareness and speed?

Where did you get that idiotic assumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You don't have a right to drive.

I disagree that we don't have the right to drive.  I would argue that we have the natural right to travel/movement by use of whatever means is common to the day.  The fact that the government has usurped that right and taught us it is a privilege is a sad truth.  The problem with @Traveler's example is that it is already customary that those who misuse their natural right in a way that would infringe upon the rights of others are then themselves subject to have that right infringed upon.  Someone who abuses substances to a mind altering state, does not have to then drive a vehicle; it is the driving under the influence in the public arena that is the problem which infringes upon the right to life of others

People with substance abuse problems may be imprisoned, but their right to travel is not altered unless they actually drive under the influence.  Likewise, someone who uses a deadly weapon under the influence in a way that infringes upon the rights of others should equally be subject to removal of that right (and they already are, and in many cases the influence of illicit substances is not even required to be a factor, however it is reasonable to assume that said individual may not have made such an improper decision had they not been under the influence).

Interesting court decisions establishing the right to drive:

Quote

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."
[Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367,154 SE 579 (1930)]

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
[Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958)]

"The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. A restraint imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore, must conform with the provision of the Fifth Amendment that ‘No person shall be * * * deprived of * * * liberty * * * without due process of law’."
[Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 225 F.2d 938, at 941]

To defend your point, Thompson V Smith also established that the right to travel is not the same as the right to drive, however, given that modern interstate highways prohibit pedestrian travel when not using an automobile, I would argue that the individual right to travel is therefore impeded, and this decision needs to be revisited.

Interestingly, there is no federal law regulating travel and/or the use of a motor vehicle requiring a permit; all such laws originate at the state level.

I am very curious to see how the right to travel will play out when individuals no longer have to actually operate the vehicle because it is driven by AI.  One already has the right to un-infringed travel in all 50 states so long as the permits are obtained by the 'operator' of the mode of transportation has the correct permits (i.e. I can ride in the car all day long without a license if my wife is driving).  If an AI is driving, the producer of the AI should require the 'privilege' not me, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Grunt said:

The government not being forced to protect a right doesn't mean it isn't a right.  The government deciding they can take away, or regulate, a right also doesn't mean it isn't a right.  Do you think innocent people didn't have a right to freedom because we legally enslaved them?

Just being a tad bit nitpicky here.  The government is not being forced to protect a right.  There are only 3 reasons the government exists - to provide for common defense, negotiate trade, and protect rights.  So they're not "forced" to protect certain rights - it's the reason a government exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Traveler said:

What I am asking of the forum is:  In light of gun violence in this country and the propensity that such violence is often related to mind altering drugs.  Perhaps we ought to think that addiction to or regular use to the level of intoxication of such drugs is perhaps an exclusion for the 2nd Amendment and therefore a reason to exclude that person from a right to bear arms (access to firearms).  For sure we do not want them operating a motorized vehicle - if someone is intoxicated walking around with a loaded firearm - is that so much less of a concern to public safety?

 

We already have that law.  You can not be intoxicated and possess a firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, person0 said:

I disagree that we don't have the right to drive.  I would argue that we have the natural right to travel/movement by use of whatever means is common to the day.  The fact that the government has usurped that right and taught us it is a privilege is a sad truth.  The problem with @Traveler's example is that it is already customary that those who misuse their natural right in a way that would infringe upon the rights of others are then themselves subject to have that right infringed upon.  Someone who abuses substances to a mind altering state, does not have to then drive a vehicle; it is the driving under the influence in the public arena that is the problem which infringes upon the right to life of others

People with substance abuse problems may be imprisoned, but their right to travel is not altered unless they actually drive under the influence.  Likewise, someone who uses a deadly weapon under the influence in a way that infringes upon the rights of others should equally be subject to removal of that right (and they already are, and in many cases the influence of illicit substances is not even required to be a factor, however it is reasonable to assume that said individual may not have made such an improper decision had they not been under the influence).

Interesting court decisions establishing the right to drive:

To defend your point, Thompson V Smith also established that the right to travel is not the same as the right to drive, however, given that modern interstate highways prohibit pedestrian travel when not using an automobile, I would argue that the individual right to travel is therefore impeded, and this decision needs to be revisited.

Interestingly, there is no federal law regulating travel and/or the use of a motor vehicle requiring a permit; all such laws originate at the state level.

I am very curious to see how the right to travel will play out when individuals no longer have to actually operate the vehicle because it is driven by AI.  One already has the right to un-infringed travel in all 50 states so long as the permits are obtained by the 'operator' of the mode of transportation has the correct permits (i.e. I can ride in the car all day long without a license if my wife is driving).  If an AI is driving, the producer of the AI should require the 'privilege' not me, eh?

There are so many things in this post.  First I did not want to get deep into driver's license, beyond possible parallels owning and operating motorized vehicles and owning and operating firearms.  60+ years ago when I obtained my first firearm - I was required to complete a gun safety course offered by the NRA.  Contrary to some opinions of history, I grew up in a country where the NRA was very interested in gun safety and keeping guns out of the hands of those that do not respect guns and law abiding citizens.  I grew up in an era where rights and responsibilities were the same thing.  Many think the NRA is all about gun rights.  If it is - I never got that memo.  In my world the NRA is and always has been about education and responsible gun ownership.

Now I want to shift gears and document some of my personal experience with the DMV.  I have, during my relative long lifetime, been the recipient of two traffic violation tickets (one of which was a speeding ticket on a bicycle - of which I am very proud of).  I have never been involved in a traffic accident as a operator of a motorized vehicle ( have been hit by cars 3 times on my bicycle - but I was not cited for any fault and lucky for me I walked away each time).   The reason I am posting this is because I have a very good driving record - even by insurance standards.  Some years ago I was diagnosed with hypertension (high blood pressure).  The Dr. tells me it is genetics and age.  Somehow this information found its way to the DMV and my driver's license was immediately suspended.  Each year I am required to obtain my doctor's approval of my health in order to maintain my driving rights.  Perhaps I could argue that I am not a threat and demand my rights.  But I have decided that I can come to the same results with much less effort by having my doctor sign off on my health.

I also know a few pharmacists on personal and family levels.  I am aware and know that there are a lot of medications that are known to impair cognitive functions - plus a lot of substances that are widely used legally and others that are used illegally in society that impair cognitive functions.  So I wonder - if I, with a near perfect driving record can be made to and required to have yearly expert approval for my hypertension in order to maintain a motorized vehicle - why not to the same for those that use substances that are known to impair cognitive functions to have yearly expert approval for firearms?  And then we can make abuses of the law (both for ownership and as approving experts) as sever, under the law, as society requires to maintain public safety.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

We already have that law.  You can not be intoxicated and possess a firearm.

Do convictions of intoxication prevent gun ownership?  Is such part of a background check?  BTW - I am thinking when you say "possess a firearm" - that means on your person.  Does it also mean in your immediate vicinity? 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Do convictions of intoxication prevent gun ownership?  Is such part of a background check?  

No.

 

Quote

BTW - I am thinking when you say "possess a firearm" - that means on your person.  

Yes.

 

Quote

Does it also mean in your immediate vicinity? 

Depends on the circumstances.  That would be a case by case situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

We already have that law.  You can not be intoxicated and possess a firearm.

Which is odd, in a way.  Because if I'm intoxicated I still have free speech rights, freedom of religion....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Just being a tad bit nitpicky here.  The government is not being forced to protect a right.  There are only 3 reasons the government exists - to provide for common defense, negotiate trade, and protect rights.  So they're not "forced" to protect certain rights - it's the reason a government exists.

Why the heck aren't you an American citizen. You seem to understand these ostensibly "American" concepts better than many or most Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why the heck aren't you an American citizen. You seem to understand these ostensibly "American" concepts better than many or most Americans.

The Philippines need more of these concepts than Americans.  You already got your government foundations on this particular concept.  The Philippines is still struggling to get their government on any solid foundation, let alone this particular concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Which is odd, in a way.  Because if I'm intoxicated I still have free speech rights, freedom of religion....

 

It's not odd.  The STATE is a thug and violates rights all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grunt said:

It's not odd.  The STATE is a thug and violates rights all the time.

Yeah, um, we agree. I was saying that gun rights aren't treated the same as free speech rights/freedom of religion etc and should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yeah, um, we agree. I was saying that gun rights aren't treated the same as free speech rights/freedom of religion etc and should be. 

I am not sure you are correct - I believe someone can be arrested on the grounds of public intoxication and/or disturbing the peace when attempting to exercise free speech while intoxicated. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I am not sure you are correct - I believe someone can be arrested on the grounds of public intoxication and/or disturbing the peace when attempting to exercise free speech while intoxicated. 

So my free speech rights don't apply if I'm drunk? @mirkwood and @Just_A_Guy-do I have free speech rights if I'm drunk or high?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MormonGator said:

So my free speech rights don't apply if I'm drunk? @mirkwood and @Just_A_Guy-do I have free speech rights if I'm drunk or high?

 

Actually, I think that no, they do not, though I think the phraseology is problematic. Your rights don't vanish into non-existence when you're intoxicated, but we require people to be able to exercise certain rights responsibly before we protect that right. You have a right to move from place to place, including by driving an automobile—but you may not exercise the automotive expression of that right when you're drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So my free speech rights don't apply if I'm drunk? @mirkwood and @Just_A_Guy-do I have free speech rights if I'm drunk or high?

 

I doubt you would be allowed to testify in a court of law if you were drunk or high.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vort said:

Actually, I think that no, they do not, though I think the phraseology is problematic. Your rights don't vanish into non-existence when you're intoxicated, but we require people to be able to exercise certain rights responsibly before we protect that right. You have a right to move from place to place, including by driving an automobile—but you may not exercise the automotive expression of that right when you're drunk.

I think driving is a privilege, not a right. 

But it's interesting to me. If I'm wrong, fine. I'm not a lawyer. But my mental state, including being intoxicated or high, shouldn't effect my rights to free speech. Now don't get me wrong-I don't have the right to incite a riot or tell a crowd to beat you up. But if I'm drunk and decide to engage in a peaceful social protest-that should be fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now